Bengaluru, Sep 12 (PTI) The Karnataka High Court on Thursday completed its hearing on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the legality of Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s approval for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case, and reserved its orders.
The court also extended its August 19 interim order directing the special court for people’s representatives that was slated to hear complaints against him in the case to defer its proceedings till the disposal of the petition.
“Heard, reserved, interim order subsisting will continue till the disposal of the petition,” Justice M Nagaprasanna said after completing the hearing.
The Governor on August 16 accorded sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions of activists Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.
On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved to the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor’s order.
In the petition, the chief minister submitted that the sanction order was issued without due application of mind, in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.
Siddaramaiah sought quashing of the Governor’s order contending that his decision is legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous considerations.
Appearing for the chief minister, noted lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof Ravivarma Kumar made submissions during today’s hearing.
Singhvi said the entire five-six page order of the Governor imputed has only one point — “I’m deciding independently, I’m not governed by you (Cabinet).” “The Governor has not gone beyond those five pages to add a word as to how not being bound by these people (Cabinet) I find how, what, when or where the CM is complicit prima facie, and therefore I grant sanction,” he said.
He was referring to the Governor terming as “irrational” the decision taken by the Council of Ministers advising him to withdraw his show-cause notice to the chief minister and to reject the application seeking prosecution sanction.
Ahead of granting sanction for prosecution, the Governor based on a petition filed by advocate-activist T J Abraham, had issued “show-cause notice” on July 26 directing the chief minister to submit his reply to the allegations against him within seven days as to why permission for prosecution should not be granted against him.
Singhvi said the Governor — without any material — says that the Cabinet is ultimately headed by the CM, therefore it must be biased.
To this, the Judge, noting that there is a “concept of unconscious or subconscious bias”, asked: “which Cabinet will tell that their leader should be proceeded against? which Cabinet will approve saying– he is our CM, 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 responded saying the Governor has not reasoned out, and claimed that it is a case of “presumptive bias”.
Calling the Siddaramaiah case as unusual, he said, one person (Siddaramaiah) is singled out by the three complainants in the 23-year-old case. “This man (Siddaramaiah) has been a Minister (whenever in power) since the 1980s and he has held various portfolios. (He has held) no particular portfolio on this issue, no particular file or decision or recommendation or approval…you can’t find a case like this.” The senior counsel said, there is no reasoning by the Governor as to why he (CM) is guilty prima facie or why the Cabinet is wrong.
Further speaking on sanction under Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he said, it is for the investigating officer to first form an opinion that inquiry or investigation is warranted.
Stating that the order of the Governor granting permission for prosecution was issued in undue haste with the pre-determined mind and (it) exhibits a “cherry picking”, Singhvi said this case demonstrates without doubt that there is “cherry picking.” He said: “Where the present case was unduly and hastily fast tracked, while several other applications for prior approval remained pending for a long duration (before the Governor).” Trying to highlight the antecedents of respondent T J Abraham, Singhvi said he is a habitual litigant having a well documented history of engaging in blackmail, extortion and misuse of legal process. To this, the Judge said, “…a whistleblower will always face these problems.” Responding to this, Singhvi asked, “will the Supreme Court impose Rs 25 lakh costs on a whistleblower, there can be whistleblowers without this….” Citing Governor’s findings while granting sanction, Prof. Ravivarma Kumar said, “…in the last 50 years Siddaramaiah is the only man who has served the full term of five years (as CM), and he is now relected, and the Governor says that the democracy is in perils.” Kumar, further pointing out one of the findings of the Governor, said, “it betrays the mind of the Governor. The political vendetta he has got in taking this decision. We have attributed political motives and he has not refuted that….” PTI KSU RS KH
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.