Karnataka High Court adjourns hearing on CM's petition challenging Guv's order to Saturday

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday adjourned to Saturday the hearing on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the legality of the Governor Thaawarchand's sanction for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case to Saturday.

The court also extended its August 19 interim order directing the special court for people's representatives that was slated to hear complaints against him in the case, to defer its proceedings till the next date of hearing.

Appearing for the Chief Minister, noted lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi made submissions when the hearing resumed.

"Heard the learned senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who has completed his submission for the present and would reserve his right of rejoinder submissions. Once the submissions are concluded by the respondents, the learned solicitor general (of India Tushar Mehta who appeared for the Governor) submits that the matter would be taken up on 31st (August), he would complete his submissions on the said date. List the matter on Saturday at 10:30 am," said Justice M Nagaprasanna.

"Interim order granted on August 19 shall continue till the next date of hearing," he said.

The Governor on August 16 accorded sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions of Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.

On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor's order.

In the petition, the Chief Minister submitted that the sanction order was 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.

Siddaramaiah sought quashing of the Governor's order contending that his decision is legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous considerations.