follow us:
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Justice L. Narasimha Reddy Commission for holding a press conference to reveal details of an inquiry against former Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR). The Commission of Inquiry was set up by the state's Congress government to investigate power purchase agreements made by the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government and the construction of two thermal power plants.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Justice L. Narasimha Reddy Commission for holding a press conference to reveal details of an inquiry against former Telangana Chief Minister K. Chandrasekhar Rao (KCR). The Commission of Inquiry was set up by the state’s Congress government to investigate power purchase agreements made by the previous Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) government and the construction of two thermal power plants.
Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, heading the bench which included Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, stressed that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done. The bench recommended replacing the judge of the Commission of Inquiry and subsequently disposed of KCR’s plea after being informed that Justice Narasimha Reddy had decided to step down.
Previously, the Telangana High Court had dismissed the plea filed by KCR at the threshold. KCR sought to declare the appointment of a one-man commission to review the decisions made by the then state government regarding power procurement from Chhattisgarh and the construction of the Bhadradri and Yadadri Thermal Power Plants as illegal and beyond jurisdiction. He argued that the appointment violated the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, and the Electricity Act, 2003.
On July 1, a division bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti rejected KCR’s claims of bias, stating that the Commission was impartial and not politically motivated. KCR’s counsel contended that Justice Narasimha Reddy acted against Supreme Court orders by conducting a unilateral press conference, announcing details of the ongoing inquiry.
The Commission had issued a notice to KCR seeking information on the power purchase agreements and power plant constructions. Due to his campaign commitments for the Lok Sabha elections, KCR requested more time to respond. However, Justice Narasimha Reddy held a press conference on June 15, claiming irregularities in these agreements and constructions before KCR could submit his reply.
KCR argued that the Commission’s actions were illegal, arbitrary, contrary to natural justice principles, and violated Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss the plea was based on Justice Narasimha Reddy’s withdrawal from the Commission, thereby resolving the immediate concerns raised by KCR.
This development underscores the importance of maintaining impartiality and transparency in judicial inquiries, especially those involving high-profile political figures. The Supreme Court’s intervention ensures that the process remains fair and credible, reinforcing the principle that justice must be perceived to be done.
