Today, On 12th September, The High Court concluded hearings on the Chief Minister’s petition challenging the Governor’s approval for prosecution. The Chief Minister contested the Governor’s decision, arguing that it was unconstitutional and politically motivated. After reviewing the arguments, the court has reserved its judgment.
Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday concluded its hearing on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition, which challenges the validity of Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s approval for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case.
The court reserved its judgment and extended its interim order from August 19, instructing the special court for people’s representatives to postpone any proceedings related to the complaints against Siddaramaiah until the petition is resolved.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, after completing the hearing, stated,
“Heard, reserved, interim order subsisting will continue till the disposal of the petition.”
The case revolves around Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s August 16 sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, allowing prosecution for alleged offenses detailed in petitions by Pradeep Kumar S.P., T.J. Abraham, and Snehamayi Krishna.
On August 19, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah filed a petition in the High Court challenging the Governor’s sanction, arguing that the order was issued without proper application of mind, in violation of statutory requirements, and against constitutional principles, particularly the Council of Ministers’ advice, which is binding under Article 163 of the Indian Constitution.
Siddaramaiah sought the quashing of the Governor’s sanction, asserting that the decision was legally flawed, procedurally defective, and influenced by external factors. Representing the Chief Minister, advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar made their arguments in court.
Singhvi pointed out that the Governor’s five-to-six page order mainly stated,
“I’m deciding independently, I’m not governed by you (Cabinet).”
He further criticized the lack of explanation in the order, arguing that the Governor did not provide any reasoning for how or why the Chief Minister allegedly complicit, merely stating the decision to grant sanction.
Singhvi referring to the Governor’s description of the Council of Ministers’ decision as “irrational” when they advised him to withdraw the show-cause notice issued to the Chief Minister and reject the request for prosecution sanction.
Before granting the sanction for prosecution, the Governor, acting on a petition by advocate-activist T.J. Abraham, had issued a “show-cause notice” on July 26, instructing the Chief Minister to respond within seven days to the allegations and explain why permission for prosecution should not be granted.
Singhvi argued that the Governor, without any supporting evidence, implied that the Cabinet’s decision must be biased simply because it was led by the Chief Minister.
In response, the judge acknowledged the concept of “unconscious or subconscious bias” and posed the question,
“Which Cabinet will tell that their leader should be proceeded against? Which Cabinet will approve, saying he is our CM, and the Governor has sought the opinion of the Cabinet, and this Cabinet is going to permit sanction or approval for prosecution. Which Cabinet will do that and go against their leader?”
Singhvi countered by stating that the Governor failed to provide a clear rationale, calling it a case of “presumptive bias.”
Calling Siddaramaiah’s case “unusual,” Singhvi highlighted that the Chief Minister has been singled out by the three complainants in a case that is over 23 years old.
He noted,
“This man (Siddaramaiah) has been a Minister since the 1980s, holding various portfolios. He had no specific portfolio, file, decision, recommendation, or approval related to this issue… you won’t find another case like this.”
Singhvi further argued that the Governor provided no reasoning for why Siddaramaiah is prima facie guilty or why the Cabinet’s advice was incorrect. He explained that under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is the investigating officer who must first determine whether an inquiry or investigation is warranted.
Singhvi criticized the Governor’s decision to grant prosecution permission, stating it was made with undue haste, showing a “pre-determined mind” and exhibiting clear “cherry-picking.”
He remarked,
“This case was unduly and hastily fast-tracked, while several other applications for prior approval have remained pending for a long time (before the Governor).”
Referring to the controversial 50:50 land allotment scheme, under which Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi received land plots and monetary compensation, Siddaramaiah explained that this scheme was based on a mandate passed by the previous government.
The complaint alleged that Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, was “gifted” over three acres of land by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy. The land, initially acquired and then de-notified, was developed by MUDA. Parvathi sought compensation and allegedly received inflated compensation, including 14 developed alternate plots, which exceeded the value of the original land under the 50:50 scheme.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Chief Minister, stated,
“The BJP coalition came to power on July 26, 2019. The decision allowing MUDA to handle land allocation was made on November 14, 2019, under this government’s mandate. MUDA, acting under that policy, compensated individuals with 50% of developed land where MUDA had not formally acquired land but used it.”
Singhvi emphasized that Siddaramaiah had no role in acquiring, de-notifying, or selling the land, as these decisions made solely by MUDA based on laws established by the previous government.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Governor’s office, countered that the Governor issued the sanction after finding prima facie material for investigation. He also noted that the Governor had acted independently, disregarding the advice of the Council of Ministers, which had merely “copy-pasted” the State’s brief, advising against the sanction.
Singhvi also alleged that one of the complainants, T.J. Abraham, a criminal background, but Justice Nagaprasanna remarked that “sometimes, whistleblowers do face these things” and assured the Senior Advocate’s submissions would be considered.
After hearing all arguments, the Court reserved its judgment.