Karnataka High Court Upholds Governor's Sanction Against CM Siddaramaiah In MUDA Case, Says Matter Requires Investigation
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 24) dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea against the Governor's decision granting sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for investigation/prosecution against the Chief Minister in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval from the Governor. The bench further said that it is the duty of complainant to seek approval under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act and the Governor can take independent decision.
"The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all the acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed," said Justice Nagaprasanna.
With respect to application of Section 17A PC Act the court while pronouncing the order said, "The approval under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory under the facts and situation. Section 17A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code or 220 of BNSS against a public servant. It is the duty of the complaint to seek such an approval".
Whether the Governor has to heed to the aid and advice of council of ministers in passing such an order the court said, "The Governor in normal circumstances has to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers, but can take independent decisions in exceptional circumstances and the present case projects such exception. No fault can be found in the Governor exercising independent discretion to pass the impugned order. It would suffice if the reasons are mentioned in the file of the decision making authority, particularly the high office and those reasons succinctly form part of the order. A caveat, reasons must be in the file, reasons for the first time cannot be brought before the constitutional court by objections".
The High Court further said that the Governor's sanction order does not suffer from any "non-application of mind". It further said that this was not a case of semblance of no application of mind but infact "abundance application of mind". It also observed that the grant of opportunity of personal hearing is not mandatory under Section 17A PC; if the authority chooses to do so it is open to it.
"The decision of the governor of alleged hot haste has not vitiated the order, the order is restrictive to approval under Section 17A of the Act and not an order granting sanction under 218 of BNSS," the court added.
The high court passed the order in the CM's plea seeking quashing of an order issued by 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 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 CM had earlier argued that the Governor's sanction order to prosecute him was bereft of any reasons on why he was prima facie guilty while adding that the Governor's discretionary power in such cases was limited.
Among various arguments made, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the CM had argued it was important to keep in mind the "umbrella of statutory protections provided especially to an elected public servant paving way for an inquiry/investigation which has very serious implications of diluting or unseating a mandate contrary to the elections".
The senior counsel had earlier said that the same has to be interpreted in that contextual manner.
"That it is not just a walk in walk out system. There has to be a proper protective umbrella which is given a full letter and spirit implementation," Singhvi had emphasized. Singhvi had further submitted that it would be a "mistake to suppose", that the moment a minister or a chief minister is involved, the established jurisprudence of the Governor having "extremely limited powers to act in his discretion" is automatically overridden. He had earlier submitted that the Constitution says that the "discretionary 'so called exceptional powers' of the Governor" are "limited and specific".
On the application of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, the senior counsel said that the offence took place sometime in 2005 and so in 2010, Section 17A cannot be applied "retrospectively". He further submitted that Governor was now stating that "he does not wish to file reply" and that he had said that there were "specific dates of complaints pending".
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.
Opposing the plea the, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appearing for the Office of the Governor had argued that the Governor's sanction was granted after "elaborate application of mind", adding that the sanction order had considered everything.
On the issue of non compliance of natural justice, Mehta had 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".
The SG had earlier 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".
Meanwhile the complainants had earlier argued Governor's sanction order against the CM may not be looked at as adversarial but for ensuring purity in public administration. It was contended under Section 17A PC Act, "seeking approval is not contemplated; it is permissible.".
Background
The petition challenged the order issued by the Governor on August 17 granting approval for investigation as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sanction for prosecution as per Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 17A pertains to Enquiry/Inquiry/investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by public servants in the discharge of official functions or duties.
The CM's plea claimed that the sanction order was issued without due application of mind, in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India. It was claimed that the impugned order of sanction is tainted with mala fides and is part of a concerted effort to destabilize the duly elected government of Karnataka for political reasons.
Read Also:
Case title: Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 413
Click Here To Read/Download Judgment