Governor observed prima facie misuse of office by the CM and issued show-cause notice: Solicitor General

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court this morning resumed the hearing of petitions regarding Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s sanction to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.

The case came before a single Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasana at 10.30 am and it involves allegations of corruption and irregular allocation of sites by MUDA to Siddaramaiah’s wife B.M. Parvathi.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Governor, argued that the Governor is not required to depend on the Cabinet’s recommendations when deciding to prosecute the Chief Minister. Instead, the Governor must evaluate whether there is a prima facie case warranting investigation by an agency.

Mehta emphasised that if a cognisable offence is identified, the Governor must independently consider and approve the action, similar to any public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

He read the Governor’s note to the Court, highlighting that the Governor, upon reviewing T.J. Abraham’s complaint, observed prima facie misuse of office and issued a show-cause notice.

The Solicitor General also referenced a previous judgement stating that if the Council of Ministers’ advice is irrational or biased, the Governor is required to act independently and assess whether a prima facie case exists.

Tushar Mehta cited a judgement authored by Justice M. Nagaprasana, which states that anyone can initiate criminal proceedings by applying for sanction to prosecute a public servant.

A copy-paste job: Mehta criticised the Chief Minister’s reply, describing it as a “cut-and-paste” job from documents prepared by the Chief Secretary, Advocate General, and Cabinet. He pointed out that the petition mirrored these documents exactly, including the same font and print, indicating a lack of independent thought.

He elaborated that the Chief Secretary’s notes were followed by the Advocate General’s opinions and judgments, which were then verbatim reproduced in the Cabinet’s 90-page note. The Chief Minister’s reply, Mehta claimed, simply copied this Cabinet note.

According to Mehta, Governor’s sanction order is a 6-page document reflecting thorough consideration. He argued that no prior hearing is required under Section 17A, which pertains to executive and administrative powers. He added that issuance of show-cause notice does not imply undue haste and that Siddaramaiah was subsequently given time for a hearing.

Senior Counsel Maninder Singh, representing one of the complainants, Snehamayi Krishna, alleged that Cabinet’s resolution was intended to pressure Governor. Singh also questioned how acquired land was reclassified as agricultural, humorously suggesting it was “by magic.”

He argued that this case clearly warrants investigation and criticised uniform replies from Government authorities as impeding the investigation. He urged the Court to uphold the public trust doctrine and ensure that the investigation is not obstructed.

The hearing was adjourned for lunch when we went to the Press.