Karnataka HC notice to state in plea against governor in Muda case

Siddaramaiah had challenged the governor’s approval to prosecute him in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda) land allotment case

The Karnataka high court on Thursday issued notices to the state government and related respondents following an appeal by chief minister Siddaramaiah, who challenged the governor’s approval to prosecute him in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda) land allotment case. A division bench of chief justice NV Anjaria and justice KV Aravind has scheduled the next hearing for January 25, 2025.

The appeal stems from a September 24 ruling by justice M Nagaprasanna, which upheld governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot’s decision to sanction investigation into the case (File photo)

The appeal stems from a September 24 ruling by justice M Nagaprasanna, which upheld governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot’s decision to sanction investigation into the case. Activists TJ Abraham, Pradeep Kumar, and Snehamayi Krishna alleged irregularities in the allocation of 14 Muda sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi BM. The sites were granted under a compensatory scheme for 3.16 acres of land in Kesare village, which Parvathi claimed she owned. It was contested that she lacked legal rights to the property. After public backlash, Parvathi requested Muda to cancel the allotment, a request that was accepted.

During the hearing, the court also addressed a separate appeal by Devaraju, the original landowner, challenging the governor’s sanction. The bench noted, “Notice issued to respondents returnable on January 25, 2025.”

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, argued that the governor’s sanction violated Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior approval through appropriate channels, not direct intervention by the governor. He emphasised that the governor’s discretion must align with constitutional provisions unless exceptional circumstances justify independent action.

“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 directly approached the governor. Governor is bound by aid and advise of cabinet subject to certain exceptions,” he said.

Kapil Sibal, representing the state government, contended that the governor lacks the constitutional authority to sanction the prosecution of a sitting chief minister. “If you start prosecuting chief ministers and ministers in this manner, it will lead to chaos,” Sibal argued, labelling the case a broader constitutional issue. He further explained that under Section 17A, prior approval requires specific procedural adherence, which he believes was absent in this instance.

The court queried Sibal about the governor’s authority, to which he clarified that while the governor appoints the chief minister, prosecution falls outside the governor’s jurisdiction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Sibal also pointed out that Siddaramaiah was the leader opposition when the alleged offences occurred in 2021, emphasising that the speaker, not the governor, holds authority in such matters.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing Devaraju, sought protection from prosecution, citing his advanced age and asserting that the single-judge bench’s observations had unfairly condemned him without due process. Dave argued that the single judge’s findings impacted his constitutional rights, including his right to property under Article 300A. He appealed for an ex-parte stay to safeguard his interests, stressing that the original land transaction occurred as far back as 1998.

The court orally responded, “All your submissions are to be considered. We are not intervening in the proceedings of the single judge.” Despite Dave’s insistence on protection, the court maintained that any such concerns should be addressed by the single judge.

Siddaramaiah’s appeal contended that the governor’s approval lacked due application of mind and violated constitutional principles, including the requirement under Article 163 for the governor to act on the advice of the council of ministers. The chief minister’s petition described the sanction order as politically motivated and an attempt to destabilise the Karnataka government.