Introduction:

In a significant turn of events, Justice (Retired) L. Narasimha Reddy announced his resignation as the head of the Commission of Inquiry, formed by the Telangana Government to investigate alleged irregularities in power procurement during the tenure of former Chief Minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao (KCR). The resignation followed the Supreme Court’s oral disapproval of public statements made by Justice Reddy, which raised concerns about potential bias.

Arguments of Both Sides:

K. Chandrashekhar Rao, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, challenged the Telangana Government’s notification that constituted the Commission of Inquiry. Rao’s primary argument centered on the claim that the inquiry was motivated by political vendetta. He contended that the Commission, led by Justice Reddy, was prejudiced against him, citing press statements made by the retired judge that suggested a pre-judged stance on the issue. Rao argued that the inquiry lacked procedural fairness and was an attempt by the new Congress-led government to tarnish his reputation and legacy.

The State Government, represented by Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, defended the constitution of the Commission and Justice Reddy’s role in it. Singhvi argued that the press statements made by Justice Reddy were merely procedural updates and did not reflect any bias or pre-judgment of the case. The State maintained that the inquiry was essential to investigate potential irregularities in power procurement during Rao’s administration, ensuring accountability and transparency.

Justice Reddy, represented by Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, also refuted allegations of bias. Sankaranarayanan emphasized that Justice Reddy’s statements in the press were limited to procedural aspects and did not delve into the merits of the case. He argued that the claims of bias were unfounded and that the former judge had acted within his remit to provide necessary updates on the inquiry’s progress.

Court’s Judgment:

The Supreme Court, presided over by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, scrutinized the arguments presented by both sides. The bench expressed its concerns regarding the public statements made by Justice Reddy, which seemed to touch upon the merits of the case. The CJI underscored that procedural fairness is paramount in any inquiry and that justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done.

The court conveyed its discomfort with the perception that the head of the Commission had pre-judged the matter, which could undermine the integrity of the inquiry. The bench suggested that the State Government replace Justice Reddy to maintain the credibility of the inquiry process. Senior Advocate Singhvi sought time to consult with the State Government, leading to a brief adjournment.

Upon resumption, Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan conveyed Justice Reddy’s intention to resign from his position as head of the Commission. The Supreme Court recorded this development in its order and disposed of Rao’s petition, effectively closing the chapter on Justice Reddy’s involvement in the inquiry.