The Karnataka HC Today (Sept 24) dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s decision to sanction his prosecution in the alleged MUDA land scam case. Bench ruled the Governor could take an “independent decision” and that Mr Gehlot “did apply his mind in abundance”. There is, therefore, “no fault in the Governor’s actions, as far as the order (to prosecute the Chief Minister) is concerned”, the court said.
![Breaking: [MUDA SCAM] Karnataka HC Dismisses Governor's Sanction to Prosecute CM Siddaramaiah](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-7-3.png?resize=640%2C355&ssl=1)
Bengaluru: Today (24th Sept): The Karnataka HC dismisses Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s approval for an investigation into alleged illegalities in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotments involving his wife.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the plea filed by Siddaramaiah, which challenged the Karnataka Governor’s sanction allowing three individuals to file corruption cases against him regarding land allocated by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to his wife, Parvathi.
“The complainants were justified in filing the complaint and seeking the Governor’s approval,” the Court stated.
The bench also stated that it is the responsibility of the complainants to seek approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the Governor is entitled to make independent decisions. “The facts presented in the petition warrant investigation.
The high court issued this order in response to the Chief Minister’s plea, which sought to quash the Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s sanction to prosecute him in connection with the alleged multi-crore MUDA scam.
In an interim order on August 19, the High Court provided temporary relief to Siddaramaiah by directing a Bengaluru special court to defer further proceedings and refrain from any precipitative actions following the Governor’s sanction.
On August 31, the Karnataka Governor’s office informed the court that the sanction to prosecute CM Siddaramaiah in the MUDA scam was granted after careful consideration.
Siddaramaiah had previously contended that the Governor’s order lacked any reasoning for deeming him prima facie guilty, arguing that the Governor’s discretionary power in such matters is limited.
Supreme Court advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Siddaramaiah, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued on behalf of Governor Gehlot. Advocates for the complainants, Snehamai Krishna and TJ Abraham, also presented their arguments.
Among various arguments presented, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Chief Minister, emphasized the importance of considering the “umbrella of statutory protections afforded to elected public servants,” which could significantly impact the integrity of electoral mandates in the face of inquiries or investigations.
The senior counsel previously stated that the situation must be interpreted in its proper context.
“It’s not simply a walk-in, walk-out system. There must be a comprehensive protective umbrella that is fully implemented in both letter and spirit,”
Singhvi emphasized.
He further argued that it would be erroneous to assume that the established jurisprudence, which limits the Governor’s discretionary powers, is automatically overridden when a minister or chief minister is involved. He highlighted that the Constitution specifies that the Governor’s “discretionary, so-called exceptional powers” are “limited and specific.”
Regarding the application of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, Singhvi pointed out that the alleged offense occurred in 2005, so Section 17A cannot be applied “retrospectively” as it was enacted in 2010. He also mentioned that the Governor indicated he would not file a reply, stating there were “specific dates of complaints pending.”
For context, Sections 17A and 19 referenced are part of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17A pertains to inquiries or investigations related to decisions made by public servants in the performance of their official duties.
In opposition to the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Governor’s office, argued that the sanction was granted after “an elaborate application of mind,” asserting that the order took all relevant factors into account.
Regarding the non-compliance with natural justice, Mehta stated,
“At the stage of 17A, the principles of natural justice do not apply. The absence of a notice in any case would not cause prejudice.”
The Solicitor General also contended that the Governor is expected to “act in his own discretion” rather than on the “aid and advice” of the cabinet or council of ministers, particularly since the Chief Minister is facing allegations.
Meanwhile, the complainants previously argued that the Governor’s sanction against the Chief Minister should not be viewed as adversarial but rather as a measure to ensure integrity in public administration. They maintained that under Section 17A of the PC Act, “seeking approval is not required; it is permissible.”
The case revolves around accusations that MUDA illegally allotted 14 prime-location sites in Mysuru city to Siddaramaiah’s wife.
Earlier in August, Karnataka ministers and Congress legislators staged a ‘Raj Bhavan Chalo’ protest, accusing the Governor of discriminatory behavior for sanctioning Siddaramaiah’s prosecution while other pending cases remain undecided.
Governor Gehlot recently wrote to Karnataka’s Chief Secretary, Shalini Rajneesh, regarding the alleged MUDA scam, requesting a detailed report along with supporting documents as soon as possible.
The letter referred to a representation submitted by P.S. Nataraj from Mysuru, dated August 27, which highlighted that the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) had undertaken projects worth Rs. 387 crores, allegedly violating Sections 15 and 25 of the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Act, 1987.
These projects were reportedly carried out based on verbal instructions from the Chief Minister in his constituencies of Varuna and Srirangapattana.
Nataraj further claimed that, despite the authority lacking sufficient funds, decisions were made on the oral direction of the Chief Minister. He also alleged that MUDA had misused its authority and called for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry. Given the seriousness of these allegations, the Governor requested that the matter be investigated, and a detailed report with relevant documents be submitted promptly.
What is MUDA Scam
The MUDA scam case involves allegations made by three anti-corruption activists T J Abraham, Snehamayi Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar who approached the Karnataka Governor in July, seeking permission to file complaints against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
They claimed that Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, had received 14 housing sites from the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in exchange for a 3.16-acre plot of land that MUDA had illegally acquired in 2021 during the previous BJP-led government’s tenure. This allegedly caused a Rs. 55.80 crore loss to the state.
On July 26, Karnataka Governor Thawarchand Gehlot issued a show cause notice to Siddaramaiah. Although Karnataka’s Council of Ministers passed a resolution on August 1 urging the Governor to withdraw the notice, the Governor sanctioned proceedings against Siddaramaiah under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on August 16.
READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON MUDA SCAM
