Governor's Sanction To Prosecute CM Siddaramaiah In MUDA Case To Ensure Purity in Public Administration: Complainant Tells Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court on Monday was told that the Governor's sanction order against CM Siddaramaiah may not be looked at as adversarial but for ensuring purity in public administration.

This submission was made by the complainant in Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea against the governor's order to prosecute him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam. 

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing 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.

On Saturday (August 31), the office of the Governor had submitted that the sanction granted to prosecute Siddaramaiah was done after "elaborate application of mind", adding that the sanction order had considered everything. Submissions had also been made by counsel appearing for certain complaints. 

Appearing for Snehamayi Krishna, the complainant, senior advocate KG Raghavan began by submitting that under Section 17A of the Prevention Of Corruption (PC) Act, "seeking approval is not contemplated; it is permissible.". 

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 decisions taken by public servants in the discharge of official functions or duties. Section 19 of the Act is on the necessity of "previous sanction" for the prosecution of a public servant.

At this stage, the high court orally said, "I have dispelled that by straightway saying not only police, anyone can seek approval. If the foundation would not require then why would a super structure require it". 

Meanwhile, Raghavan continued that application of mind can be after a detailed inquiry and not at the stage of Section 17A, where only primary facie material is required to be shown. To this, the court orally responded that the "material available is debatable" and that it will see it.

Sanction order should not be looked as adversarial but to ensure purity in public administration

On the requirement of conducting the investigation, Raghavan said, "Philosophy of PC Act is do not use your public office to obtain advantage. Even if you have used personal influence not necessarily as BOSS it comes within the mischief of Section 7 of the PC Act."

The senior counsel said that the sanction be not looked at as "adversarial" but for ensuring "purity in public administration". The high court at this stage asked what was the "best way of restoring damaged public confidence" and "where" had it eroded. 

To this, Raghav said that the very fact that the "Commission of Inquiry was constituted shows there is anxiety that matter is required to be investigated, and Governor has mentioned about it in his order". 

The high court then orally asked if the complainant was satisfied with the Commission of Inquiry report. To this Raghavan said that this was a parallel inquiry which is "not a bar on sanction under Section 17A" PC Act. The court also orally asked that when the matter was being inquired then why was "this exercise" carried out; to this, Raghavan said that both were "parallel enquiries". 

Raghavan thereafter contended, "Maybe after inquiry there could be clean chit, but why scuttle it at this time. Would the lordship require a cloud on purity of public administration. Courts should lean in favor of matters getting inquired". 

In grey areas, an inquiry is required

With respect to the chronology of events about the alleged notification for acquiring land and de-notification of lands Raghavan submitted that the 1998 de-notification was only in respect of the land in question. He said that on 25-08-2020 one Devaraj sold the property to Mallikarjun Swamy (the brother of the CM's wife) and thereafter there was a site inspection report.

Raghavan thereafter said that in 2003, MUDA had formed land layouts. He said, "...and then Devaraj comes and says 'you have sold my property' and then he sells it to Mallikaarjuna Swamy. He then gifts it to his sister. On the basis of this the sister seeks compensation. If any ordinary person had made such application like this what would have been the approach of the authority- Prove your right".

However, no exercise of proving Parvathi's (wife of Siddaramaiah) title was made by the authority, Raghavan said. He further argued that there was no question of de-notifying the lands as the lands in question vested with the government (MUDA).

Arguing that the authorities did not apply their mind the senior counsel said, "No application of mind is made by authorities in respect of ascertaining value of property. The question is whether undue favour shown by overlooking all aspects, property already vested etc. How many more issues do we require for purpose of inquiry. All these things happened (in 2017 passing resolution) when the Chief Minister was in office". 

He further argued that everything was done to "suit the requirement" of the applicant-Parvathy, the CM's wife. 

Investigation may not be scuttled at the start

On the scope of Section 17A of the PC Act, the senior counsel said, "Some elements of discomfort (nagging suspicion) is required to allow investigation to take place... don't scuttle it at the start". 

Arguing that the Governor had applied his mind in this case while passing the sanction order, Raghavan said, "The role played by the public servant can be miniscule but still the PC Act would apply". 

The court thereafter listed the matter on September 9 for submissions by the advocate general and continued the operation of the interim order. 

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).

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.

Case title: Siddaramaiah AND State of Karnataka & Others.