The Karnataka High Court.
Credit: DH File Photo
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday reserved its orders on the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging the sanction/approval granted by Governor Taawarchand Gehlot to investigate against him in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) sites allotment complaints. After a marathon hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna reserved the matter for judgement and also extended the interim order till the disposal of the petition.
On August 17, the Governor had granted sanction under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) after considering the applications filed by three complainants. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Siddaramaiah, advanced his arguments as reply to the arguments placed on behalf of the office of the governor as well as the complainants.
Singhvi said the governor’s actions pertaining to other applications of similar sanctions as against the application against Siddaramaiah speak volumes about the violations of Article 14 of the constitution.
Singhvi said the governor dealt with the applications pertaining to the sanctions relating to former BJP ministers Murugesh Nirani, Shashikala Jolle and union minister HD Kumaraswamy after deciding to accord sanction against Siddaramaiah. He cited the application seeking sanction to investigate allegations of corruption against Shashikala Jolle.
He said while the application against Shashikala Jolle was pending since December 9, 2021, it gained momentum only after Siddaramaiah sent his reply to the governor’s notice on August 3, 2024. The governor had rejected the application on Shashikala Jolle on August 8, 2024. The case against Shashikala Jolle was based on a sting operation on allegations of bribery in the mid-day meal scheme.
"This kind of conduct that you (governor) take three years, minus 4 months, for a 17A sanction and then reject it and on the same day you issue a show cause to a person who for 23 years has not signed a file or made a recommendation. It is not just a violation of Article 14 but it is shocking,” he said, adding that the governor has recorded reasons for rejecting the application seeking a probe against Shashikala. “In my (Siddaramaiah) case, show cause was issued on the day the complaint was filed," Singhvi said.
Singhvi detailed the legislative history behind section 17 A and said the intention was to provide a protective layer to the public servant. While the statute mandates a police officer to seek prior permission to launch investigation, in cases of private complaints a stranger coming to the operation of 17 A, removes this significant part of the protective layer, Singhvi said.
Senior advocate Prof Ravivarma Kumar, also appearing for Siddaramaiah, said the land in question was shown as denotified land in the approved layout plan itself. He cited the Governor’s order which said the ‘present situation amounts to peril to democratic principles’ and said that the former has political vendetta.
"In the last 50 years, Siddaramaiah is the only person who served the full term of five years as the Chief Minister and he has been re-elected. The governor says that democracy is in peril. Is it not disturbing finding the governor has indulged in," he asked.