New Delhi: The allegation pertaining to a land ‘scam’ against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, prima facie “depicts stretching of the arms of undue influence” and “portrays abuse of power of the seat” of the chief minister or any other post held by him, the Karnataka High Court observed Tuesday.
A bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed Siddaramaiah’s petition against Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s decision to grant sanction to probe his role in the alleged scam, and made some critical commentary over his and his family’s possible involvement.
The 200-page long verdict noted: “If this were to be a case of a common man, he would not have fought shy of facing the investigation.” Therefore, it added, as a “leader of the proletariat”, Siddaramaiah should not “fight shy of any investigation”.
“There is lurking suspicion, looming large allegations, and the beneficiary of (Rs) `56 crores, is the family of the Chief Minister—the petitioner (sic),” the court said. Judged from these spectrums, the irresistible conclusion is that an investigation becomes necessary, it added.
The judgment rejected Siddaramaiah’s argument that the governor was bound by the aid and advice of the council of ministers under Article 163 of the Constitution. It said that in exceptional circumstances, such as the present case, the governor could exercise his independent discretion.
In the case at hand, the court opined, there was a possibility of bias on the part of the council of ministers that was asked to give its advice on a complaint that sought prosecution of its own chief minister.
“It need not bear scientific acumen to prima facie hold that the council of ministers who are appointed on the advice of the chief minister would go against the chief minister and pass a resolution that permission should be accorded for grant of approval by the governor for prosecution,” held the judge.
He said that the governor had taken an “appropriate decision to independently assess” the matter as a situation where the ministers would act against their own head of the state cannot be “contemplated today” as India is still not a “utopian land”.
“Therefore, testing the decision of the Cabinet on the bedrock of bias, I find no fault in the discretion exercised by the Governor,” the judge said.
Also Read: What’s behind Siddaramaiah’s invite to 8 CMs for discussion on fiscal federalism
What prompted governor’s sanction
On 16 August, Karnataka governor had accorded sanction to prosecute Siddaramaiah on a complaint submitted before him by anti-corruption activist T.J. Abraham. Though two more complaints were filed raising similar allegations, the decision referred to only Abraham’s.
The three had approached the governor in July, for the sanction, claiming corruption in the acquisition of 3.16 acres of land in Kesare village in 2004 by Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law B.M. Mallikarjun, who had gifted the land in 2010 to his sister Parvathi B.M..
Subsequently, the land was exchanged in 2021 for 14 housing sites by Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) under a 50:50 scheme that required the government to allot half of the acquired land in a developed area.
The complainants alleged that illegal manipulations and corrupt steps taken at various stages favoured the CM’s wife, who fetched close to Rs 56 crore as compensation from the government.
Inquiry and prosecution were sought against the chief minister, who, the complainants alleged, was actively involved in the “manipulations” for corrupt gains by corrupt means for himself and his family. All these things allegedly happened between 1996 and 2022. This is the period in which Siddaramaiah was at the helm of affairs twice, a lawmaker twice and the chief minister once, the complainants had submitted.
The complaint or information was first given to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police in Mysuru on 18 July, 2024 and a demand was made to file a case under the new penal code. Upon not receiving any response, they submitted a representation to the governor as well for his sanction to prosecute Siddaramaiah and simultaneously filed a complaint before the magistrate for registration of a graft case against him.
A show-cause notice was issued by the governor, while the complaint was forwarded to the chief secretary so that it could be placed before the council of ministers for their view. The notice was issued only on Abraham’s complaint.
Both the chief minister and the council of ministers dismissed the allegations. The cabinet rejected the complaint with an observation against the complainant, Abraham, that he comes with criminal antecedents with criminal cases of extortion and blackmail registered against him. It said that the complaint suffered from serious infirmities and it was not maintainable.
The response also spoke of how representation to prosecute two former ministers under the previous government led by Bharatiya Janata Party was still pending with the governor, while in Siddaramaiah’s case, he had issued a notice immediately.
Siddaramaiah’s arguments
Before the court, Siddaramaiah’s counsel described the governor’s decision as “blatant non-application of mind” and said there was violation of principles of natural justice, as the notice made reference to just one complaint, whereas there were two more.
The governor’s decision, it was argued, also suffered from want of application of mind because he issued notice on the day when he received the complaint. Notably, it ignored the Cabinet’s opinion that favoured the CM.
On the facts, the CM’s lawyer told the court that he never put a dot of ink on any paper concerning the issue and that all actions are pointed towards his wife and brother-in-law. He cannot be dragged into the web of crime for their acts, the counsel submitted. It was also argued that he has not benefited out of the said transaction.
Siddaramaiah called the entire case a political conspiracy, hatched to destabilise his government. If such an action is allowed, he pointed out, there was no need for Article 356 of the Constitution that talks about imposition of President’s Rule if the state is unable to function in accordance with the Constitution.
It was also submitted that only a police officer, who in terms of the law would investigate the case, could have approached the governor’s office for his approval.
The governor defended his move by making the court go through the file and his noting on the case. He contended that prior to his passing of the order, every point mentioned in the CM’s response was taken note of. The order per se, it was argued, need not contain elaborate reasons. Yet, every aspect that has been put forth in the reply was dealt with.
‘Facts justify the complaints’
Unimpressed with Siddaramaiah’s counter-allegations against the complainant, the high court said that his submission over Abraham’s criminal antecedents can never “mask the real issue”.
The court narrated the sequence of events and the steps that were taken to first notify the land for acquisition and then denotify it, followed by its sale to the CM’s brother-in-law and the transfer to his wife. On examining the timelines, the court observed that during the entire period when the alleged irregularities took place, Siddaramaiah was “at the helm of affairs” during the decision-making processes.
“It is too bleak contention meriting any acceptance, albeit prima facie, that the petitioner was not behind everything standing just behind the curtain,” the court said, adding that the facts narrated “justified the complaints” against the CM.
The court disagreed with Siddaramaiah’s argument that only a police officer could seek approval to prosecute him from a competent authority. The court looked into the genesis of the Prevention of Corruption Act and said an approval under the law is imperative.
On who can apply for this sanction, the court observed: “It is trite that the criminal law can be set into motion by any person, concept of locus is alien to criminal law.”
In the present case, it said, the police are yet to come into picture as the complainant approached the court for investigation. Therefore, it is necessary that whoever complains against a public servant by registering a private complaint, it is his burden to seek approval from the hands of the competent authority before the matter is referred for investigation.
‘Governor’s approval for beginning investigation’
On whether the governor has to each time pay heed to the aid and advice of the council of ministers, as mentioned under Article 16 of the Constitution, the high court quoted two Constitution Bench judgements of the Supreme Court on the law.
It said that normally, the governor is required to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, but if it is a matter of sanction to prosecute, it may carve out an exception while considering the grant of prosecution of the chief minister or a minister.
As a matter of propriety, the governor may have to act on his own discretion. This would be similar to a situation as if the council of ministers disables itself or disentitles itself.
In terms of the top court verdicts, the governor can take the exceptional step of ignoring the cabinet’s advice, if there is a likelihood of bias in it. A Cabinet, it said, nominated by the chief minister, would not be free from bias or being partisan towards their leader. It is in such exceptional circumstances that an independent discretion is imperative, the court said.
It did not find any infirmity in the Governor’s order, which, in the court’s view, was not bald, laconic or cryptic, as alleged by the CM. “The file contains elaborate reasons… Therefore, it is not a case where there is no reason, in the file, or even in the order,” the high court observed. The governor’s approval, it highlighted, was only for the purpose of beginning an investigation.
‘Allegations were grave’
A decision taken in undue haste would not vitiate the decision unless it suffers from non-application of mind, the court said, observing that the “allegations were grave, so immediate action was taken”. This finding by the court was in response to Siddaramaiah’s submission that since the approval was accorded in “undue haste”, it defied the principles of natural justice.
Also, according to the chief minister, he was not heard before the sanction was cleared. On this point, the court observed: “If natural justice is stretched to the extent of hearing the person against whom a complaint is registered prior to registration of the crime, it would be stretching it to an unimaginable extent. If the submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner is to be accepted, every person against whom approval is sought, a notice will have to be issued to the person against whom such approval is sought.”
As it found no fault with the discretion exercised by the governor, the high court said that his decision communicated to the chief minister ran into several pages and contained all material related to the allegations.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Arrest, FIRs didn’t stop ‘anti-graft crusader’ TJ Abraham. Before Siddaramaiah, 4 CMs drew his fire