Justice M Nagaprasanna’s Bench was hearing arguments from various respondents, including the State Governor and private complainants, opposing Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition against the prosecution sanction.
Karnataka: Today (31st Aug) Chief Minister Siddaramaiah received a temporary reprieve from the Karnataka High Court, which extended the previous interim order for two more days. The court has adjourned the hearing of Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the Governor’s order for an investigation against him to Monday, September 2, at 2:30 PM.
Justice M Nagaprasanna’s Bench was hearing arguments from various respondents, including the State Governor and private complainants, opposing Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition against the prosecution sanction.
On 19 August, the high court directed the trial court to defer proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah till the challenge is heard by it.
Senior Advocate Ranganath Reddy, who argued on behalf of the complainant T.J. Abraham, completed his arguments. He noted that no prosecution requests for public representatives were pending before the Governor, a fact he confirmed through RTI. Reddy asserted that all applications had been resolved and no prosecution petition was pending.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the CM, asked for additional time to respond to the respondents’ arguments, leading the court to reschedule the hearing to Monday.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh represented one of the complainants seeking the Governor’s sanction to prosecute Siddaramaiah. He argued that the case involved significant fraud and that it appeared there had been a deliberate attempt to facilitate an unlawful land transfer to Siddaramaiah’s wife.
Singh asserted, “This is clearly a case warranting investigation. When government authorities have submitted uniform responses, how can any state authority conduct an unbiased investigation?”
Ranganath Reddy, representing Abraham, asserted that no permission for prosecuting any public representatives is pending with the Governor.
When the judge asked how he knew this, Reddy responded,
“The information was obtained through an RTI request. All applications have been disposed of.” He argued that there is no prosecution petition currently before the Governor.
AG Sasikiran Shetty requested that the case be scheduled for trial at 3:30 PM, stating that it could not be accommodated any earlier. Meanwhile, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the CM, asked for additional time to respond to the respondents’ arguments. Consequently, the court adjourned the hearing until Monday, September 2.
Sections 17A and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
Tushar Mehta’s submissions clarified the legal distinctions between Sections 17A and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, focusing on the Governor’s duties and procedural aspects of notices and natural justice.
Mehta argued that if, as per the petitioner, a wife’s criminal liability can’t be attributed to the husband, then no sanction was required under Section 17A, and the petition should be withdrawn. He criticized the argument as “self-defeating” and “suicidal.”
Section 17A pertains to procedures for investigating offenses linked to public servants’ official decisions, while Section 19 requires prior sanction before prosecuting a public servant.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that the Advocate General’s opinion was copied word-for-word, including every comma and period, into the opinion prepared by the State Cabinet. This identical text was then also included in the Chief Secretary’s note and the Chief Minister’s response to the Governor’s show cause notice.
Mehta remarked,
“The petition by CM Siddaramaiah mirrors the same content, page by page and paragraph by paragraph. It’s ironic that Bangalore, the IT hub, didn’t use artificial intelligence to paraphrase the copied material. They say AI can’t surpass natural stupidity, and this situation is a prime example of that lack of thoughtful effort.”
The trial court was not allowed to proceed with the case based on the counsel’s suggestion that such proceedings should be contingent on the High Court’s petition outcome. Justice Nagaprasanna rejected this request, stating:
“The interim order I issued was to prevent any subordinate court from continuing with the case while I review the matter. This is crucial to determine if sanction is necessary and if the correct process has been followed. We can expedite the resolution if needed. My aim is not to delay but to ensure a thorough review of the issues.”
CM Siddaramaiah’s petition
Regarding Siddaramaiah’s petition, it challenges the sanction order communicated to the Chief Secretary on 17 August. The petition argues that the sanction was issued without proper consideration, violating statutory and constitutional principles, including the Council of Ministers’ advice under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.
Filed under Articles 226 and 227, the petition claims the order passed on 17 August violates the law, natural justice principles, and specific sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and BNSS, thus necessitating judicial intervention. It also accuses the prosecution order of being motivated by political intentions aimed at destabilizing Karnataka’s government.
The petition seeks to stay the operation of the Governor’s order dated 16 August and requests the High Court to pass any orders deemed necessary in the interests of justice and equity.
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi made Strong Argument:
Prabhulinga Navadagi made a strong argument, asserting that Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s permission for prosecuting Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Muda scam case should be quashed. The petition hearing continued on Saturday.
After Tushar Mehta and Singh concluded their arguments, Prabhulinga Navadagi took the floor on behalf of the complainant, Pradeep Kumar. He questioned the judge about the CM’s role in the case, asking how Siddaramaiah was involved. AG Sasikiran Shetty countered by arguing that the CM has no role in the matter.
The Governor can decide independently when there is an allegation against the CM:
Snr Adv Prabhulinga Navadagi argued that the Governor has the authority to make independent decisions when allegations are made against the Chief Minister.
He cited the RS Naik case to support his claim that the Cabinet loses its right to advise the Governor in such situations due to their vested interest.
He referenced a previous judgment stating that Cabinet Ministers are disqualified from advising the Governor in cases involving allegations against themselves. The court acknowledged that two Supreme Court judgments affirm the Governor’s ability to act independently in these circumstances.
Navadagi further contended that the Cabinet’s decision regarding the CM’s prosecution is unreasonable. He cited the Supreme Court’s A.K. Krypak case, arguing that allowing the Cabinet to influence the decision could lead to perceptions of partiality. Since the CM is a part of the Cabinet under Article 163 of the Constitution, Navadagi argued that the Governor should not be swayed by the Cabinet’s resolution.
Accused Cannot Challenge Governor’s Action:
Navadagi argued that under the 2018 amendments to Sections 17A and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused cannot be given notice under Section 17A. Notice is only permissible under Section 19.
He contended that issuing a notice would prejudice the investigation, and the accused cannot challenge the Governor’s action at this stage. Instead, the accused can only contest the FIR after it has been registered.
Navadagi also noted that the Governor’s order for an investigation stated that there was an apparent illegality, necessitating a judicial inquiry. He mentioned that the investigation is led by retired judge Desai. Additionally, he raised objections to the rules governing the one-member commission and investigation team tasked with examining the alleged illegality, arguing that these rules are flawed.
He argued that the Governor’s actions, while procedural, showed a lack of discretion. The Governor’s decision was based on the government’s orders to appoint the probe, suggesting that discretion was not properly exercised. Following Navadagi, Senior Advocate Ranganath Reddy continued representing the complainant, TJ Abraham.
In the prosecution order, the Governor stated that he is prima facie “satisfied” that the allegations and supporting evidence indicate the commission of offenses.
The order of prosecution
The Governor criticized the Council of Ministers’ decision, labeling it “irrational” for advising him to withdraw his showcause notice to the Chief Minister and reject the prosecution sanction application.
The order, which was reviewed by South First, indicated that the prosecution sanction was granted under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhitha, 2023, concerning the alleged offenses outlined in the petitions.
The Governor also noted that it is a “settled legal principle” that the individual facing allegations should not be in a position to decide the course of action.
The complainants—T J Abraham, Snehamayi Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar—had approached the Governor in July for sanction to file private court complaints.
They allege corruption in the acquisition of 3.16 acres in Mysuru in 2004 by Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law, who gifted it to Siddaramaiah’s wife in 2010, and its subsequent exchange in 2021 for 14 housing sites under the MUDA’s 50:50 scheme.
CM Siddaramaiah Government stayed the 50:50 scheme in October 2023 due to misuse concerns. The Karnataka government has initiated two Pnto the MUDA scam: one led by former Karnataka High Court judge P N Desai and the other by IAS officer Venkatachalapathy.
The case revolves around allegations of corruption and improper land allocation by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to Siddaramaiah’s wife.
READ PREVIOUS REPORTS ON MUDA SCAM
