Today, On 9th September, The Karnataka High Court extended the stay on trial court proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case until September 12. The case involves allegations related to irregularities during his tenure as Chairman of MUDA. The extension provides temporary relief to the CM while the legal battle continues.
Bangalore: The Karnataka High Court on Monday postponed the hearing on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s approval for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case to September 12.
The court also extended its August 19 interim order, which directed the special court for people’s representatives to delay its proceedings on the complaints against him until the next hearing date.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated,
“Heard the learned counsel Lakshmi Iyengar appearing for the fourth respondent (Snehamayi Krishna). The respondents have all completed their submissions. The learned Advocate General has also completed his submissions. For the reply submission of senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and senior counsel Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, list this matter on September 12 at 12 pm.”
Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated,
“On September 12, we should be completing this.”
On August 16, Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot granted sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for the alleged offences detailed in the petitions of Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham, and Snehamayi Krishna.
In response, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court on August 19, challenging the legality of the Governor’s order.
In his petition, the Chief Minister argued that the sanction order issued without proper consideration, in violation of statutory requirements, and contrary to constitutional principles, specifically the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. Siddaramaiah sought the quashing of the Governor’s order, contending that the decision legally unsound, procedurally flawed, and influenced by external factors.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the state government, noted that private individuals had sought prosecution approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, emphasizing that a preliminary inquiry by an investigating officer is a necessary precondition for such approval.
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty highlighted that this is a corruption case with an “abnormal delay,” noting that,
“This is a case of more than 20 years (old), as 1998 is the date of de-notification of the land, so there is abnormal delay.”
He argued that a preliminary inquiry mandatory under such circumstances and emphasized that a private individual should not be placed on a higher level than a police officer, hence the necessity of a preliminary inquiry.
Shetty pointed out that the Governor does not typically conduct preliminary inquiries but merely grants prior approval.
Arguing that this is the role of a police officer according to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and judicial precedents, Shetty noted,
“In this case, however, the Governor conducted the preliminary inquiry by hearing the complainant, issuing show-cause notices, and seeking clarifications and replies,”
Shetty submitted,
“The competent authority (Governor) could have asked the investigating officer to provide the necessary information, as required by law,”
He further contended that the application seeking sanction under Section 17A should have been returned.
“He (Governor) ought not to have sat as an investigating officer.”
Adding that the Governor should not have entertained the application at all, He concluded,
“If it was accepted, then preliminary inquiry information ought to have been sought from the investigating officer as per Section 17A or the SOP issued by the central government, instead of relying on the complainant,”
Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty stated,
“What is crucial is that the offence has to be relatable to the decision, recommendation, and the office held.”
He emphasized that courts have made it clear that an investigating officer should possess credible evidence on which to base their opinion when seeking prior approval under Section 17A. Shetty argued that, in order to entertain an application under Section 17A, a preliminary inquiry must have been conducted, adding that the investigating officer should only be a police official.
Shetty also noted that the Governor heard one of the complainants on the same day the complaint was received, which he argued is improper,
“There is no such procedure to hear the private citizen or his complaint, especially when allegations are made against the accused, whoever that may be, without his presence.”
He further stated,
“The issuing of a show-cause notice the whole procedure itself is not contemplated in the eye of law at all.”
Lakshmi Iyengar, representing the fourth respondent, Snehamayi Krishna, remarked,
“If the check period is gone into, then all this falls in place.”
She added,
“Ultimately, what we are looking at is when are the periods in which the petitioner held a certain post, and that is the time when all of this took place.”
Advocate Lakshmi Iyengar, representing the fourth respondent, Snehamayi Krishna, outlined the timeline of events connected to the case, stating,
“From 1996 to 1999, he (the petitioner) was the Deputy CM, and that is the de-notification period. From 1999 to 2004, when the petitioner was not in power as he lost elections, that period was a lull period. During 2004 to 2007, the conversion phase started. Subsequently, between 2008 and 2013, transfers took place, and from 2013 to 2018, when he was CM, compensation was sought.”
She further emphasized the significance of the period from 2018 to 2022, noting that during this time,
“The petitioner was an MLA and held a position of power during which 14 sites were allotted (to his wife) at the government guest house.”
Iyengar concluded by asserting,
“Every single act that has taken place has been done on behalf of the petitioner, and it has been established all through.”
The High Court’s decision to extend the stay on trial proceedings highlights the ongoing debate over the procedural and constitutional validity of the Governor’s sanction. The court is expected to hear concluding arguments from Siddaramaiah’s senior counsels, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar, during the next hearing on September 12, 2024.
The outcome of the case could set a precedent for how Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is applied in future cases, particularly in balancing the powers of the executive, the judiciary, and the Governor’s office in corruption-related matters. The next hearing poised to be a critical moment in this ongoing legal battle.