BENGALURU: In a setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court dismissed his petition challenging the sanction granted by Governor Thawarchand Gehlot to prosecute him over alleged irregularities in the allotment of compensatory sites to his wife, Parvathy B. M., by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
On Tuesday, Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the verdict, upholding the governor's sanction issued on August 16.
The court observed that while the Governor typically acts according to the aid and advice of the cabinet, he can exercise independent judgment in exceptional circumstances. The court found no fault in the governor's decision to grant sanction for an investigation into the allegations, noting that the reasons for the decision were well-founded and demonstrated a thorough application of mind. The allegations against the petitioner’s family necessitated further investigation, the court said.
Reading the summary of findings in a packed courtroom, Justice Nagaprasanna indicated that the complainants were justified in their approach to the Governor and that a preliminary investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not mandatory.
When senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, requested a two-week stay on the dismissal order, the court declined, stating it could not stay its own ruling. A copy of the verdict was set to be made available later that afternoon.
Furthermore, the court clarified that the interim order issued on August 19, which had deferred proceedings related to complaints filed by social workers seeking a probe against Siddaramaiah, was now dissolved. Consequently, proceedings in the special court regarding complaints from social workers Snehamayi Krishna and T.J. Abraham will proceed.
Siddaramaiah has approached the High Court questioning the sanction granted by the Governor on August 16 on the applications filed by the social workers Snehamayi Krishna, T J Abraham and advocate Pradeep Kumar S P, despite the cabinet headed by Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar requesting the Governor to reject the applications and act as per the aid and advice of the cabinet.
While Siddaramaiah's counsel argued that the governor's order lacked substantive application of mind, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the governor's decision, asserting that it was made in light of serious prima facie allegations supported by evidence. Mehta highlighted that the state government had formed a high-level committee, led by a senior IAS officer, and appointed a commission of inquiry headed by a former High Court judge to investigate the matter, he argued.
Mehta further contended that the governor had justifiably disregarded the cabinet's advice, as the decision from the cabinet meeting chaired by Deputy Chief Minister Shivakumar was biased. Conflict of interest cannot be ruled out just because CM Siddaramaiah abstained from that meeting, since he authorised his deputy to chair it. The Governor appoints the chief minister and other ministers as per the advice of the CM, hence they cannot take an impartial decision, he argued.
