The Governor of a State has no power to sanction prosecution against Chief Minister (CM), the Karnataka government told the Karnataka High Court while opposing the prosecution of CM Siddaramaiah in the MUDA scam. The submission was made on behalf of the State by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a Division Bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind. Siddaramaiah is being prosecuted after Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot granted sanction for the same.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The Karnataka government made a significant assertion in the Karnataka High Court, stating that a Governor does not possess the authority to sanction the prosecution of a Chief Minister (CM). This statement was made in opposition to the prosecution of CM Siddaramaiah in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
The submission was presented by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind.
Governor’s Sanction Under Scrutiny
CM Siddaramaiah faced prosecution after Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot granted sanction based on allegations linked to the MUDA scam.
Challenging this move, Sibal argued,
“I am saying that in this case, the issue of sanctioning authority is a much larger constitutional issue. The Governor does not have the authority to approve prosecution of a Chief Minister …I am not supporting A or B, but this (sanction of prosecution against CM by Governor) just cannot be done. If you start prosecuting Chief Ministers and Ministers in this manner, then there will be utter chaos.”
High Court Issues Notice on Siddaramaiah’s Appeal
The High Court issued notice on Siddaramaiah’s appeal against a single judge’s decision upholding the Governor’s sanction. The matter is scheduled for further hearing on January 25, 2025.
The controversy centers on allegations of corruption involving MUDA’s grant of land to Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi. Activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar SP lodged complaints, alleging that Parvathi received 14 parcels of land as inflated compensation in exchange for developing three acres she owned.
The MUDA Land Dispute
The three acres were reportedly ‘gifted’ to Parvathi by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy, who acquired the land in 2004 from Devaraju, the original owner.
Devaraju, now 80, has expressed distress over being drawn into the political controversy.
Devaraju’s Plea: “Caught in the Crossfire”
Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing Devaraju, sought the Court’s intervention to protect his client. He stressed that Devaraju was unfairly implicated, noting,
“I am dragged at the age of 80 in the slugfest! I have nothing to do with politics. I asked my client whether he voted for BJP or Congress? He said, neither – I voted for Janata Dal (JD(S)! So milord, why should I suffer because of all this? … My life and liberty is at stake!”
In response, Chief Justice Anjaria reassured Devaraju’s counsel, stating,
“You are like the lotus in the murky water that stays clean, doesn’t touch the water. We’ll treat you like that. We’ll keep you separate.”
Despite Dave’s plea for a stay on criminal proceedings against Devaraju, the Court declined, reasoning,
“We don’t want to make any comments as it will colour the single judge’s mind.”
Questioning the Governor’s Authority
Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, argued that the Governor erred in granting prosecution sanction. He emphasized,
“First, Section 17A (of the Prevention of Corruption Act) has been completely violated. The requirement that there had to be a filter of a police officer has been violated. Here, the private complainant has gone straight to the Governor. The second is that the Governor is always bound by the advice of the council of ministers. The Governor can only interfere if there is manifest illegality in the council’s advice.”
Complaints and Further Developments
Senior Advocate KG Raghavan and Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented the private complainants.
Meanwhile, a plea for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the MUDA scam is set for a hearing before a single judge on December 10.
Conclusion
The case underscores a complex legal battle involving constitutional interpretation, political allegations, and personal grievances.
The Karnataka High Court’s observations and decisions in the coming hearings are anticipated to set significant precedents.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on MUDA Scam
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
