Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah got a breather on Monday after the Karnataka High Court, while admitting his writ petition seeking to quash Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s order sanctioning his prosecution in the MUDA scam, directed the trial court to defer its proceedings till August 29, the next date of hearing in the high court.
A single bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, taking note that the proceedings before the trial court were up for orders on whether a sanction should be granted to prosecute the CM, stated that any order permitting action to proceed further against the CM would “frustrate the proceedings” before the high court.
A special court for elected representatives, which had held proceedings following petitions by social activists Snehamayi Krishna and TJ Abraham under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and Section 218 of the BNSS, was expected to pass the orders on August 20 and 21.
Earlier in the day, Siddaramaiah had filed the petition claiming that the sanction order communicated to the Chief Secretary on August 17, 2024 had been 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.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the CM claimed that the impugned order of sanction was tainted with mala fides and was part of a concerted effort to destabilise an elected government.
Singhvi, who labelled Gehlot as “friendly Governor” claimed that he had picked the complaint against Siddaramaiah out of the many pending complaints seeking sanction. He also argued that the governor was bound by a Cabinet decision, but he chose to issue a sanction in two-page order.
Recalling the list of events, Singhvi submitted that in September 1992, there was a land acquisition notice, which was de-notified in June 1998. In 2004, there was a sale deed in favour of Siddaramaiah's brother-in-law. Then the land was converted in 2005. In 2010, the land was gifted to Siddaramaiah's wife. In 2014, there was compensation claimed for a portion of the land. In 2020 a resolution was passed for getting a portion of the developed land, and a sale deed was issued in 2022. “Siddaramaiah was not in power on these dates, and these transactions did not involve him at all,” he added.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the governor, argued that the cabinet decision denying sanction to prosecute Siddaramaiah was similar to his petition filed before the high court and in such cases there only needs to be an apprehension or suspicion of reasonable bias by the cabinet in favour of the minister against whom sanction is sought. “Although the governor was bound to act on the advice of the cabinet, an exception may be made in case of a chief minister or in cases where the governor would have to grant sanction by himself,” said Mehta, adding that a reasonable order was passed on record by a constitutional functionary, and an injunction by another constitutional body may be avoided.
The high court, which deferred the proceedings before the trail (special) court, however, did not decide the matter of interim relief.
