Court defers hearing on Siddaramaiah’s plea against governor

The Karnataka high court has adjourned to Saturday the hearing of Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot’s sanction in MUDA issue

The Karnataka high court on Thursday adjourned to Saturday the hearing of chief minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot’s sanction in the alleged illegal land allocations to his wife by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

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 (File photo)

The court adjourned the matter after Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior counsel for Siddaramaiah, concluded his arguments. Singhvi argued that the governor’s sanction was issued without proper consideration as one of the principal complainants had previously indicated that such a sanction was unnecessary for filing a case. He further said that the consent should be revoked due to what he described as a “non-application of mind” by the governor.

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.

“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.

On August 19, Siddaramaiah had moved the HC challenging the legality of the governor’s order. The petition contested the governor’s August 17 order that granted approval for an investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction for prosecution under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. Siddaramaiah’s petition argued that this sanction was granted without proper consideration, violating legal requirements and constitutional principles.

It also claimed that the sanction disregarded the mandatory advice of the Council of Ministers, as stipulated by Article 163 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petition alleged that the order was influenced by ulterior motives and was part of a deliberate attempt to undermine the Karnataka government for political purposes.

The division bench, led by M Nagaprasanna, on Thursday stated that it will continue to hear arguments from all parties involved on Saturday.

The governor and the three private complainants are expected to present their cases before Singhvi provides a final rebuttal.

During the hearing on Thursday, Singhvi sought both interim relief and the quashing of the governor’s order, calling it unconstitutional.

He asserted that according to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), an investigation into a public servant “requires sanction only when sought by a police officer or investigative agency.”

He highlighted that one of the complainants has stated that such a sanction was not required at this stage. Singhvi contended that the governor’s decision to grant sanction at a time when it was not necessary amounted to a failure to properly evaluate the situation.

Singhvi also pointed out the issue of inconsistency in the governor’s approach. He said that there were delays in granting sanctions for opposition leaders such as Shashikala Jolle, Murugesh Nirani, and HD Kumaraswamy, while Siddaramaiah’s case was handled with unusual speed. He argued that the governor’s decision to grant sanction without a report from an investigation agency or officer was flawed.

During the court session, Singhvi brought attention to the fact that neither the governor nor one of the petitioners, Pradeep Kumar, had submitted their objections to the court.

He also criticised the dual stance of petitioner TJ Abraham, who sought the governor’s consent despite previously claiming that it was unnecessary.

“The governor should impose a fine and withdraw the consent on his petition,” Singhvi argued.

Previously, the high court had granted Siddaramaiah temporary relief by instructing the lower court not to make any decisions until August 29.

With PTI inputs