Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the Karnataka High Court that the Cabinet’s advice against prosecuting Siddaramaiah in the MUDA case appeared to be a copy-paste job. Representing the Governor, Mehta pointed out the irony that Bengaluru, as India’s IT capital, didn’t even use AI to paraphrase the copied content.
Bengaluru: Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued before the Karnataka High Court that Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s decision to grant sanction for prosecuting Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case justified.
Mehta contended that the State Cabinet’s advice against granting the sanction was essentially a “copy-paste” job, lacking any independent thought or “application of mind.”
The matter is being heard by Justice M Nagaprasanna’s Bench, with various respondents, including the State Governor and private complainants, challenging Siddaramaiah’s petition against the prosecution sanction.
Read Also: MUDA Scam | Karnataka Governor Seeks Response from CM Siddaramaiah
The case revolves around accusations of corruption and the improper allocation of land by MUDA to Siddaramaiah’s wife. Representing the Governor, SG Mehta pointed out that the State Cabinet’s opinion was identical to that of the Advocate General, with even the punctuation marks remaining unchanged.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the same opinion was reproduced verbatim not only in the Chief Secretary’s note but also in the Chief Minister’s reply to the Governor’s show cause notice.
Mehta remarked,
“The petition [by CM Siddaramaiah] then contains the same averments, page by page, paragraph by paragraph. The irony is that Bangalore, being the IT capital of the country, has access to artificial intelligence. They could have at least used artificial intelligence to paraphrase what was being copied. On a lighter note, they say artificial intelligence can never match natural stupidity. This is a case of collective non-application of mind,”
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh also appeared on behalf of one of the complainants who sought the Governor’s sanction to prosecute Siddaramaiah.
He argued that a significant fraud involved, and it was clear that the situation had been manipulated to facilitate an illegal transfer of land to Siddaramaiah’s wife.
He questioned,
“This is a clear-cut case that warrants an investigation. When government authorities submit identical replies, how can any State authority conduct a fair investigation?”
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing another complainant, argued that the State Cabinet should not have any role in advising the Governor on this matter.
Navadgi stated,
“My submission is that the Council of Ministers, due to their vested interest in the matter, are disqualified from advising the Governor,”
The counsel for another complainant, TJ Abraham, asserted that Siddaramaiah had misused the office of the Chief Minister.
Concerns raised that Justice Nagaprasanna’s decision to stay the trial court proceedings while the High Court hears Siddaramaiah’s plea hindering the progress of the special court’s case. The counsel suggested that the trial court could continue its hearings, provided that any proceedings would be subject to the High Court’s final decision on the petition.
However, Justice Nagaprasanna declined this request, the judge clarified,
“Do you see why I granted the interim order? When I am hearing the matter, no subordinate court should continue with the proceedings. That is not appropriate. That’s why I have stalled it. I am hearing it… Whether sanction is required, whether it is correct I have to decide. If you want to finish quickly, we will finish quickly. I don’t intend to drag this out,”
The next hearing is scheduled for Monday, September 2, in the afternoon, when the respondents are expected to complete their submissions. The Court’s previous interim order, staying the trial court proceedings, has been extended until then.
Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar represented Siddaramaiah in court today. Siddaramaiah’s primary submissions were already completed earlier this week, although Singhvi indicated that he would make rejoinder submissions after the respondents conclude their arguments.