Sanction For Prosecuting CM Siddaramaiah In MUDA Case Had "Elaborate Application Of Mind": Governor's Office To Karnataka High Court

The office of the Governor told the Karnataka High Court on Saturday that the sanction granted by the Governor to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam was done after "elaborate application of mind", adding that the sanction order had considered everything. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the CM's plea seeking quashing of an order issued by the Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot granting sanction to prosecute the former in the alleged multi-crore scam relating to MUDA. On August 19, the high court had directed the trial court to defer all proceedings against Siddaramaiah, based on the governor's sanction, till the next date of hearing before the high court. The matter was kept today for Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta's submissions who appears for the Secretary to the Governor and for submissions by other respondents. Preliminary submissions by Solicitor GeneralStating that his submissions would be in six compartments, Solicitor General Mehta said, "I would wish to assist milords on...what are the differences between provisions of Section 17A and Section 19 and resultantly the what would be the parameters of Governors power/duty while exercising powers under Sections 17A or 19. Governor's power is akin to what is mentioned by Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case he has to see whether a prima facie case is made out. Decision of the Governor by way of the office he holds and considering the nature of Section 17A his reasons need not be elaborate; it must reflect application of mind. Next submission is their arguments was in one complaint Governor issued notice and in two he did not".On the issue of non compliance of natural justice, Mehta said, "At the stage of 17A there is no requirement of principles of natural justice. Non-issuance of notice even in one case would not have cause prejudice". For context, Section 17A and Section 19 being referred to are under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17A pertains to Enquiry/Inquiry/investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. Section 19 of the Act is on the necessity of "previous sanction" for prosecution of a public servant. The SG thereafter contended that the Governor was to "act in his own discretion" and not on the "aid and advice" of the cabinet/counsel of ministers as the Chief Minister "himself is facing an allegation". He said that the petitioner's submission that the mention of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) vitiates the Governor's decision is to be rejected. He said that suppose IPC offences are mentioned even then the "Governor will only say prima facie criminal offences are made out and it is for Investigating Officer (IO) to decide under what provisions chargesheet if any is to be filed". At this stage the high court orally said, "While referring the crime may be noted or may not be noted". To this Mehta submitted IO will decide on the application of provisions of the law after investigation adding that mention/non mention of BNSS or IPC would not vitiate the Governor's sanction/order and would not cause any prejudice to the petitioner with the opportunity to challenge the same. The SG further said, "Last, which my learned senior friend (for petitioner) mentioned, the criminal liability of wife cannot be attributed to husband. If that is so then sanction was not required under Section 17A and they should withdraw their petition...What are we arguing for. It is a self defeating suicidal argument". Mehta then referred to the Governor's file Mehta said that a show cause notice was issued to the CM on July 26. He then submitted, "It is an admitted position that contents of show cause is only about complaint made by (Abraham)". Mehta further referred to documents indicating that petitioner filed replied to show cause notice.Mehta said that Respondent No. 2 who is the principal secretary placed a note before the Governor. "He is Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor who I represent. He placed note which states that...the cabinet has to say this along with all evidence–opinion of AG, complaints etc., everything was placed. On 8-08-2024, the Hon'ble Governor directed respondent no 2 (Principal Secretary) to put up the file along with comparative statements of petitions received in relation to grant of sanction–petitions who he understands to be as complaints–reply of CM and decision of cabinet. That you give me in this format and I will make up my mind," Mehta said. At this stage the high court orally remarked, "Oh this was done?", to which Mehta said that there an "elaborate application of mind" by the Governor. He thereafter continued, "After perusing the file...the Governor then dictates about what is the Cabinet note says, reply of petitioner etc...The note is dictated by him. This comes in the noting file also. The file along with the necessary documents and...

Sanction For Prosecuting CM Siddaramaiah In MUDA Case Had "Elaborate Application Of Mind": Governor's Office To Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sanction For Prosecuting CM Siddaramaiah In MUDA Case Had "Elaborate Application Of Mind": Governor's Office To Karnataka High Court

Mustafa Plumber

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers