The hostility between the governor and the state government is nothing new. In 2011, then Karnataka Governor Hansraj Bharadwaj had sanctioned prosecution of former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa in a land denotification case triggering protests across the state by the ruling BJP. Cut to 2024, the ruling Congress has launched a campaign against Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot after the latter sanctioned prosecution against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the MUDA scam on August 16.
Siddaramaiah has moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the sanction order. Also, the high court deferred the proceedings in the trial court that is hearing two separate private complaints in the case till August 29, the next date of hearing in the high court.
Meanwhile, the submissions made by Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the chief minister and the statement made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the governor has caused intrigue.
Singhvi called the governor’s decision as "legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous considerations" and contended that the impugned order of sanction was "tainted with malafides" and was part of a concerted effort to destabilise the duly elected government of Karnataka for political reasons.
The counsel also claimed that several applications for sanction made by investigating agencies were long pending before the governor and some of the applications were made after carrying out investigation seeking sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while some seeking prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.
Singhvi said the Lokayukta police had sought approval against former Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy in November last year in an illegal mining lease case. Also, applications for sanction were made against former ministers and BJP leaders Shashikala Jolle (on December 9, 2021) in the egg tender scam, Murugesh Nirani (February 26, 2024) and G. Janardhan Reddy (May 13, 2024) in mining matters.
Mehta submitted that no such applications were pending before the governor. Mehta, while countering Abhishek's remarks that a "friendly governor" had picked only Siddaramaiah's case out of the many pending applications to sanction prosecution, said it would be wrong to use such words.
Even as the governor's counsel placed on record that there were no pending applications seeking transfer, the Lokayukta on August 19 made a fresh appeal - sanction to chargesheet Kumaraswamy in an alleged illegal mining lease case.
In November last year, the SIT (Lokayukta police) in its application stated that in 2007, Kumaraswamy, who was the mines and geology minister, had granted a mining lease (for 550 acres in Sandur, Ballari) to Sri Sai Venkateshwara Minerals company against the existing rules. The SIT claimed that Kumaraswamy had entered into a "criminal conspiracy" with the mining company as he had made a file note with his signature on October 6, 2007.
The governor sought clarification from the SIT on July 29, while the SIT made a fresh plea seeking sanction to file the chargesheet in the case.
Siddaramaiah, alleging discrimination by the governor, said, "He has taken no action even after 10 months in Kumaraswamy's case. But he wasted no time in my case. He issued a showcase notice within 10 hours after T.J. Abraham's petition against me," charged the CM.
Kumaraswamy, who held an emergency press meet alleged that the file notes and signature has been forged to frame him. "I dare the government to get the file notes and signature examined at any forensic lab. The Congress is trying to revive a dead case to tarnish my image," said Kumaraswamy.
"I had approached the court in 2014 and the court had directed the SIT to complete the investigation within three months. They failed to do it and are now seeking sanction for filing the chargesheet. Is this not contempt of court?" asked Kumaraswamy, hinting that the case was kept alive for political reasons.
The sanction order against Siddaramaiah has led to the Congress government expediting the cases against the opposition leaders, even as the BJP and JDS are accusing the ruling party of indulging in vindictive politics.
The Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has petitioned the high court seeking clarity on whether Yediyurappa (and three others) can be prosecuted in a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case.
It may be recalled that on March 14, an FIR was filed by the minor's mother, who accused Yediyurappa of molesting her daughter when they visited his house in connection with a case.
On June 14 this year, the high court had ruled that Yediyurappa, 81, should not be arrested in the POCSO case. The police had filed the chargesheet on June 27 and a special court for POCSO cases issued summons on July 6. But the high court, on July 12, exempted the former chief minister and three others from appearing in court.
Karnataka Home Minister G. Parameshwara said the government was seeking the nod from the high court to start the proceedings in the POCSO court. “We have instructed the advocate general and our advocates to get the stay, if any, vacated. Once it is vacated at the earliest. We will fight the case legally."
Interestingly, the Congress government, annoyed over the BJP and JDS highlighting the alleged MUDA and Valmiki corporation scams during the "Mysore chalo" padayatra last month, threatened to expose the opposition leaders. The ruling Congress has listed 21 scams allegedly involving the previous BJP government. As all eyes are on the high court, the sanction order against Siddaramaiah has certainly stirred a political storm in Karnataka.
