The Karnataka cabinet’s “advice” to the governor not to prosecute Chief minister Siddaramaiah in the MUDA land allotment case was a “collective non-application of the mind” as it was a “copy-paste” of the Advocate General’s opinion, said Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the governor in the Karnataka High Court on Saturday.
A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna hearing the petition seeking to quash the governor’s sanction order (to prosecute the CM), adjourned the hearing to September 2, and also refused to allow proceedings in the trial court till the matter is being heard before the High Court.
“The opinion of the AG is reproduced verbatim in the cabinet note (advice), in the chief secretary’s note as well as the CM’s reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Governor. The irony is, Bengaluru being the IT capital of the country, there is Artificial Intelligence (AI) available. They could have at least used AI for paraphrasing instead of copying para by para. On lighter note, they say AI can never match natural stupidity. This is a collective non-application of mind,” said Mehta.
The petitioner (CM) represented by advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, on August 29, had called the governor’s sanction order as “hasty” and as one that reflected no “application of mind”. Singhvi had also stated that the cabinet “aid and advice” to the governor was not considered.
Mehta also remarked that the cabinet note was of 91 pages and perhaps “the longest cabinet note ever made in the country” and also elaborated why the governor should not be heeding to the advice of the cabinet in this particular case.
"Article 164 requires, that the Governor would appoint Minister on the recommendation of Chief Minister. Also, by Rule 20 of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, the Chief Minister has an overarching power. He is the final authority, and it is not enough that he did not participate in the meeting of cabinet (which was chaired by deputy chief minister at CM’s behest) because the process requires his participation. It is he who decides whether to send it to the cabinet. Merely because he abstains from particular meeting would not meet ends of justice".
Mehta cited the Supreme Court's judgment in A.R. Antulay vs R.S. Nayak & Anr. (1988) and said, the court had said when it comes to sanction of the chief minister, the governor should independently apply his mind.
On the question of governor’s “non-application of mind” and “hasty” sanction order, as argued by the petitioner’s counsel, Mehta said that the order was not hurried and issued in one day as being alleged.
“On July 26, petitioner T J Abraham came in person to give details. In fact the governor was made aware of the larger issue of reported irregularities in the MUDA much before he issued the show-cause notice to the chief secretary and gave the government ample time from July 5 till July 26 before issuing the 6-page sanction order, which was based on the three petitioners complaints, rebuttals from the government (replies by Chief Secretary, Chief Minister, Cabinet note) and on August 8, had directed his principal secretary to put up a file along with comparative statements of petitions received in relation to grant of sanction and CM’s reply and cabinet decision in a (certain) format comparative analysis points, to help him make up his mind (on the sanction). The governor obviously discussed the issue in detail and dictated the order. It did not happen in one day,” said Mehta, adding any delay in sanctioning the order would also be alleged as “dereliction”.
On the issue of non-compliance of natural justice raised by petitioner, Mehta said, "At the stage of 17A there is no requirement of principles of natural justice. Non-issuance of notice even in one case would not have caused prejudice".
Senior advocate Maninder Singh who appeared for Respondent no. 4 (Snehamayi Krishana) said his submissions were from the perspective of a complainant who feels "aggrieved by the violation of public trust in democracy".
Singh said the land in question—3 acres 16 guntas—was acquired by MUDA in 1992 (initial notification), so any sale after the notification becomes void. “Land acquisition took place between 1992 and 1997, and MUDA took possession of the land and is the owner as per the revenue records. In 1998, the compensation to landlosers was determined, and award was made and also the first de-notification. Plots were developed and sold in 2001 till 2004, on the very same land. Foundation is made to give sites to the petitioner’s wife. How can a sale deed for an agriculture land be made in 2004, when the same piece of land was already acquired by MUDA and developed? In 2004, you paid Rs 6 lakh in a fraudulent transaction as there was no agricultural land available in the name of the original person. The 14 developed sites given as compensation to CM’s wife are worth Rs 55 crore. This is a bounty, a clear ex facie violation of public trust by public servant,” argued Singh.
Senior advocate Prabhuling Navadagi, appearing for one of the respondents Pradeep Kumar, said the question of governor consulting the cabinet on before sanctioning prosecution order against the chief ministers did not arise as the Article 163 (Constitution of India) does not bifurcate between council of ministers and the Chief Minister and here the allegation was against the CM.
Navadagi stated that the terms of reference of the four-member inquiry committee and subsequently the single member inquiry commission imply there is prima facie, huge irregularity in the MUDA and hence the requirement to investigate. Governor’s order too is in the same spirit.
Ranganath Reddy, counsel for TJ Abraham, one of the three petitioners who had sought Governor’s sanction order, said Mallikarjunaiah the brother-in-law of the petitioner (CM) had purchased, applied for conversion and also gifted a non-existent agricultural land of 3 acres and 16 gunta to his sister and CM’s wife BM Parvati as the land in question in Kesare village had already been acquired by the MUDA in 1992 and was known as Devanur layout with developed plots.
“Also, due influence of the CM in the case cannot be ruled out because 14 compensatory sites were given to CM’s wife and not to the original title holder who is no more. The petitioner (Siddaramaiah) was the deputy chief minister when the land was denotified in 1998 and also when it was converted. He was the chief minister when his wife sought compensation and when 14 sites were allotted , he was the leader of the opposition. CM’s son and then MLA Yathindra was present at the MUDA council meeting when the compensation application (50:50 ratio) was being discussed,” stated Reddy.
