Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

Granting relief to Chief Minister (CM) Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Monday deferred proceedings in a special court related to the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam. The proceedings, initially scheduled for this week, have been put on hold until the next High Court hearing on August 29. The High Court had taken up the petition filed by Siddaramaiah challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s sanction for his prosecution in an alleged multi-crore scam.

The decision was delivered by a single bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who ordered the trial court to defer its proceedings, observing that any order allowing the case against the Chief Minister to proceed would undermine the ongoing proceedings before the High Court.“I have bestowed by consideration to the prima facie submission. It was argued that the proceedings before the trial court are up for orders on whether a sanction should be granted to prosecute the CM. Any order permitting action to proceed further against the CM, would frustrate the proceedings before this court. Since the proceedings are pending before this Court, the trial court shall defer its proceedings till the next date of hearing. There shall be no precipitative action qua these complaints…" the court noted.

The investigation pertains to alleged irregularities in the allotment of alternative sites by MUDA during Siddaramaiah’s tenure as Chief Minister in his previous term, with the Governor granting sanction for investigation and prosecution under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The complaint against Siddaramaiah was filed by activists TJ Abraham, Snehamayi Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar SP. Abraham initially sought the Governor’s sanction in July.

Siddaramaiah filed an urgent petition challenging the Governor’s sanction order, which was issued on August 17. His petition argued that the sanction order is politically motivated and issued without proper application of mind, violating statutory and constitutional principles, including the binding advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163 of the Constitution. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Siddaramaiah, contended that the Governor’s decision was flawed and lacked merit. Singhvi argued that the complaint against the CM was frivolous and that the Governor disregarded a detailed 100-page report from the state Cabinet, which outlined why the complaint did not warrant sanction. It was further contended that the Governor’s brief, two-page sanction order provided no reasoning for approving the investigation. Singhvi referenced previous judgments, including the Nabam Rebia case, to argue that the Governor’s discretion should be limited, especially when it conflicts with the advice of the Cabinet.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Governor, argued that the decision to grant sanction was valid and that the Governor acted within his constitutional authority. Mehta suggested that in cases involving the Chief Minister, exceptions could be made, allowing the Governor to independently grant sanction if there is a reasonable suspicion of bias by the Cabinet.

The High Court, despite opposition from the complainants against the grant of injunction to the order of the Governor, stayed the proceedings. The court also directed that no precipitative action should be taken against the Chief Minister until the next hearing on August 29, 2024.

 

Cause Title: Siddaramaiah v. State of Karnataka & Others [WP 0022356/2024]