Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On CM Siddaramaiah's Appeal Against Order Upholding Governor's Sanction To Prosecute In MUDA Case

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 5) issued notice to the state government and other respondents in an appeal by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging the single judge's order which had upheld Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's decision granting sanction to investigate him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.The CM submitted before the court that Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act had been violated and wrongly upheld by the single judge. It was contended that the complainant had in the present case directly approached the Governor while there is a filter of a police officer which has not been availed. Meanwhile the State submitted that there were constitutional issues arising in the matter which affects the polity of the country. After hearing the parties for some time a division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while dictating its order said, "Notice issued to respondents returnable on January 25, 2025".The court also issued notice on original landowner Devaraju's appeal against sanction and noted, "There is no gainsaying that the subtrata on which leave to appeal is preferred is based on central challenge launched in the Appeal filed by WA 1569/2024 (Siddaramaiah). In the aforesaid view notice in this appeal also".It further issued notice on another appeal filed by Devaraju challenging issuance of notice on the complainant's plea to transfer MUDA case to the CBI.During the hearing senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Chief Minister while giving a gist of the matter submitted, "Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act has been violated and wrongly upheld by the Single judge. It has to go through a filter of a police officer, here the complainant has directed approached the Governor. Governor is bound by aid and advise of cabinet subject to certain exceptions. The exceptions is where there is manifest irrationality.Then Governor may interfere. However, the ld judge upholds sanction, on the ground that state is interested party and CM as head of the cabinet is ipso facto controls the entire cabinet. Even as per the case set up by them manifest irrationality is a test laid down. Governors' orders has not decided on it. During hearing Governors office without filing objections, submits charts of proceedings".The court at this stage orally said that the notice will have to be issued and said that the matters will have to be heard at length.Meanwhile senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the State of Karnataka also contended that under Section 17A PC Act the word used is "prior approval" which requires something that has happened."Otherwise in every case Governor can give approval on complaints received. It is an issue not discussed anywhere and it is constitutional issue. In this statute it says sanction to be granted by authority appointed him. Nobody appointed him (CM)," Sibal said.To this the court orally asked, "You are saying CM is not appointed by Governor". Sibal responded, "No I am saying to prosecute him is the authority under Section 17A PC Act".He further submitted that the offence were committed in 2021 and the CM was then the Leader of Opposition. "Who can remove him, constitutional bench says only the speaker. What jurisdiction does the Governor have? This issue is not decided by the single judge.These are constitutional issues. It is not about 'a' CM or 'b' CM. It affects the polity of the country. These are issues to be decided it cannot be done". Meanwhile senior advocate Dushayant Dave appearing for one Devaraju said, "Learned Single judge has issued notice on petition filed seeking transfer of case to CBI. I need to be protected I am seeking ex-parte stay". On the court's query Dave informed the court that Devaraju is a "farmer who sold the land to CM's brother-in-law". He also submitted that the landowner was not a party to the proceedings before single judge and in his "absence the single judge has condemned" him.At this stage, Senior advocate K G Raghavan appearing for one of the complainant's Snehamayi Krishna said, "The anxiety my learned friend is showing is about hearing of petition seeking case be transferred to CBI. The order is issue notice. How can an appeal be maintainable against this order of issue of notice milords". Dave however said that he was referring to Article 21of the Constitution adding that why should his client be condemned without hearing him.The court however orally said, "No expression of opinion is there in the single judge order. We are last court to interject in proceedings of other court". Dave however submitted, "I only want this court to protect me milords, not asking to interject in the other courts proceedings". He thereafter gave the details of the appeal filed by the CM challenging single judge bench's order.Dave referring to the order said, "I have been condemned milord. I have been left with no remedy. See the findings against me made by the learned single ...

Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On CM Siddaramaiah's Appeal Against Order Upholding Governor's Sanction To Prosecute In MUDA Case

Mustafa Plumber

Tags