Karnataka High Court upholds Governor’s approval for investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah

Now the special court can proceed to pass order on complaints seeking probe by an independence agency  

In a setback for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday (September 24) upheld the Governor’s decision to grant permission to conduct an investigation against him on the allegation of illegalities in allotment of 14 sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to his wife, Parvathi.

Also, the High Court vacated the interim order granted on August 19 directing a special court in Bengaluru to defer a decision on complaints against Mr. Siddaramaiah, and also rejected a plea to stay today’s verdict to enable Mr. Siddaramaiah to appeal against it.

Also read | MUDA case LIVE: Karnataka High Court dismisses CM Siddaramaiah’s petition

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing Mr. Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the legality of permission granted by the Governor.

Observing that the facts narrated undoubtedly require investigation in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside but the family members of Mr. Siddaramaiah, the court said that Governor’s order granting permission for investigation “does not suffer from any application of mind, but there is abundance of application of mind...”

The complainants were justified in registering the complaint, or seeking approval from the Governor as approval under Section 17A Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory in the given situation.

Governor vs Chief Minister

• No hesitation in facing any investigation: Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah

• Governor vs government in Karnataka

• Why is sanction for prosecution needed?

• When Governors moved against Chief Ministers in the recent past

“Section 17A of the PC Act nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 against a public servant for an offence punishable under provisions of the PC Act. It is the duty of the complainant to seek such approval,” the court said.

On the Governor’s power, the court said that the Governor, in the normal circumstance, has to act on the aide and advice of the council of Minister, as per Article 163 of the Constitution of India, but the “Governor can take an independent decision in exceptional circumstances and the present case projects one such exception”.

“No fault can be found in the Governor exercising independent discretion to pass the order granting approval for investigation,” the court said while clarifying that the Governor’s order is restricted only for approval for investigation under Section 17A of the PC Act, and not sanction for prosecution under Section 218 of BNSS.

On the allegation of non-application of mind made in Mr. Siddaramaiah’s petition, the court said it would suffice if the reasons are recorded in the file of the decision-making authority, particularly of the high office, and those reasons succinctly form part of the order.

“The gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from want of application of mind. It is not a case of not even a semblance of application of mind by the Governor, but abundance of application of mind by the Governor,” the court observed.

Making it clear that the law does not provide for an opportunity to a public servant before grant of approval for investigation under Section 17A, the court said that if the authority chooses to give an opportunity, it is open to the authority.

The court also said that the alleged haste in the decision of the Governor has not vitiated the order of granting approval for investigation.

In its interim order passed on August 19, the High Court had granted temporary relief to Mr. Siddaramaiah by directing a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings, and not to take any precipitative action pursuant to the sanction granted by the Governor on complaints by Abraham T.J. of Bengaluru and Snehamayi Krishna of Mysuru, who had sought an order from the special court for a probe. This interim order was vacated by the High Court on September 24.

With this verdict, the Special Court of Session for Criminal Cases against MLAs and MPs can proceed to pass orders on the complaints lodged by Mr. Abraham and Mr. Krishna, who have sought a direction to an independent agency to conduct an investigation against Mr. Siddaramaiah.

Published - September 24, 2024 01:19 pm IST