Trial Court asked to defer proceedings against Chief Minister

Bengaluru:  The Karnataka High Court (HC) yesterday ordered the Trial Court to halt any proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah after Governor Thawaarchand Gehlot sanctioned the Congress leader’s prosecution in an alleged site scam involving the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

This interim relief for the embattled CM will remain in place until Aug. 29, when the HC is set to hear the case again.

Siddaramaiah approached the High Court to challenge Gehlot’s approval of his prosecution, arguing that the Governor’s decision was “illegal and without authority of law.” He contended that allowing the prosecution posed “a grave and imminent risk of irreparable harm” to his reputation and could “disrupt governance and potentially lead to political destabilisation.”

The High Court, in its order, stated, “Since the matter is under this Court’s consideration and pleadings are yet to be completed, the concerned court (the Trial Court) should defer its proceedings until the next hearing.”

The case stems from two private complaints seeking an investigation into Siddaramaiah and others regarding the allotment of sites to CM’s wife, B.M. Parvathi, by MUDA.

In his petition, Siddaramaiah questioned the legality of the Governor’s sanction, which permitted an investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prosecution under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.

HC observation

The High Court deemed it necessary to issue an interim order after it was revealed that the Special Court of Sessions for criminal cases against former and current MPs and MLAs was scheduled to decide on Aug. 20 whether to entertain one of the complaints against Siddaramaiah.

The Governor’s sanction, granted on Aug. 17, came in response to applications filed by Bengaluru-based social activists S.P. Pradeep Kumar and T.J. Abraham and Mysuru-based Snehamayi Krishna.

“If the concerned Special Court issues any order on Aug. 20, it would undoubtedly undermine the proceedings of this petition… Therefore, I find it appropriate to direct the Special Court to defer the proceedings and ensure no precipitative action is taken pursuant to the sanction until the next hearing,” Justice Nagaprasanna stated in his order.

‘Guv’s decision arbitrary’

Representing Siddaramaiah, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the Governor’s decision was arbitrary and lacked proper reasoning, as the Governor provided no justification for disregarding the Cabinet’s advice, which had recommended rejecting the sanction request.

Siddaramaiah’s petition contends that the Governor ignored the detailed responses submitted by the Chief Secretary on July 27 and by the Cabinet on Aug. 1, which highlighted numerous factual and legal flaws in the sanction application filed by Abraham.

The petition further states that the Governor failed to inform Siddaramaiah about the applications filed by Snehamayi Krishna and S.P. Pradeep Kumar, leaving the petitioner unaware of these proceedings. The Governor only issued a show cause notice regarding Abraham’s application.

Singhvi claimed that the Governor acted with undue haste, bypassing constitutional requirements to grant the sanction against Siddaramaiah. He argued that the Governor’s selective urgency in approving Abraham’s application showed clear bias, as several other sanction requests, including those involving high-profile individuals like Janardhan Reddy, Shashikala Jolle and Basavaraj Bommai (all BJP members), have been pending for a long time.

Solicitor-General’s submission

However, representing the Governor, Solicitor-General of India Tushar Mehta, in a brief submission, informed the High Court that “no application is pending, as of today, on the Governor’s desk awaiting such sanction.”

Mehta clarified that Governor had only authorised an investigation and urged the Court not to pass any order that would interfere with grant of sanction to investigate or prosecute at this stage.

Singhvi countered that under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sanction can only be granted to a Police officer for investigation. He argued that the Governor should not have granted sanction based on an application from a private individual with vested interests, especially since no Police officer had requested such sanction.