Karnataka High Court Issues Notice On CM Siddaramaiah's Appeal Against Order Upholding Governor's Sanction To Prosecute In MUDA Case

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 5) issued notice to the state government and other respondents in an appeal by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging the single judge's order which had upheld Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's decision granting sanction to investigate him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.

The CM submitted before the court that Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act had been violated and wrongly upheld by the single judge. It was contended that the complainant had in the present case directly approached the Governor while there is a filter of a police officer which has not been availed. Meanwhile the State submitted that there were constitutional issues arising in the matter which affects the polity of the country. 

After hearing the parties for some time a division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while dictating its order said, "Notice issued to respondents returnable on January 25, 2025".

The court also issued notice on original landowner Devaraju's appeal against sanction and noted, "There is no gainsaying that the subtrata on which leave to appeal is preferred is based on central challenge launched in the Appeal filed by WA 1569/2024 (Siddaramaiah). In the aforesaid view notice in this appeal also".

It further issued notice on another appeal filed by Devaraju challenging issuance of notice on the complainant's plea to transfer MUDA case to the CBI.

During the hearing senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for the Chief Minister while giving a gist of the matter submitted, "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 has directed approached the Governor. Governor is bound by aid and advise of cabinet subject to certain exceptions. The exceptions is where there is manifest irrationality.Then Governor may interfere. However, the ld judge upholds sanction, on the ground that state is interested party and CM as head of the cabinet is ipso facto controls the entire cabinet. Even as per the case set up by them manifest irrationality is a test laid down. Governors' orders has not decided on it. During hearing Governors office without filing objections, submits charts of proceedings".

The court at this stage orally said that the notice will have to be issued and said that the matters will have to be heard at length.

Meanwhile senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the State of Karnataka also contended that under Section 17A PC Act the word used is "prior approval" which requires something that has happened.

"Otherwise in every case Governor can give approval on complaints received. It is an issue not discussed anywhere and it is constitutional issue. In this statute it says sanction to be granted by authority appointed him. Nobody appointed him (CM)," Sibal said.

To this the court orally asked, "You are saying CM is not appointed by Governor". Sibal responded, "No I am saying to prosecute him is the authority under Section 17A PC Act".

He further submitted that the offence were committed in 2021 and the CM was then the Leader of Opposition. "Who can remove him, constitutional bench says only the speaker. What jurisdiction does the Governor have? This issue is not decided by the single judge.These are constitutional issues. It is not about 'a' CM or 'b' CM. It affects the polity of the country. These are issues to be decided it cannot be done". 

Meanwhile senior advocate Dushayant Dave appearing for one Devaraju said, "Learned Single judge has issued notice on petition filed seeking transfer of case to CBI. I need to be protected I am seeking ex-parte stay". On the court's query Dave informed the court that Devaraju is a "farmer who sold the land to CM's brother-in-law". He also submitted that the landowner was not a party to the proceedings before single judge and in his "absence the single judge has condemned" him.

At this stage, Senior advocate K G Raghavan appearing for one of the complainant's Snehamayi Krishna said, "The anxiety my learned friend is showing is about hearing of petition seeking case be transferred to CBI. The order is issue notice. How can an appeal be maintainable against this order of issue of notice milords". Dave however said that he was referring to Article 21of the Constitution adding that why should his client be condemned without hearing him.

The court however orally said, "No expression of opinion is there in the single judge order. We are last court to interject in proceedings of other court". 

Dave however submitted, "I only want this court to protect me milords, not asking to interject in the other courts proceedings". He thereafter gave the details of the appeal filed by the CM challenging single judge bench's order.

Dave referring to the order said, "I have been condemned milord. I have been left with no remedy. See the findings against me made by the learned single judge milords, which trial court will give me relief". He further gave the details of the land possession and transaction undertaken by Devaraju.

He then submitted, "Among 100's of cases my land was de-notified, I am not the only one. Single judge was not informed about the full facts. Petitioners misled the court. Denotification in my favour in 1998...the single judge has commented in 2024. My right under Article 300A is affected. Ld single judge says the amount was then this much and now is Rs 56 crore. How am i concerned with this milords. In Karnataka denotification of land is nothing new. Farmers represent to govt and it is considered. In 1998 the denotification has happened. Without joining me the ld single judge has passed order. Criminal complaint has been filed against me with the findings of ld single judge i will have no defence". 

The court meanwhile orally said, "All your submissions are to be considered. All are jurisdictional courts we are not coming in this way". 

At this stage senior advocate Kapil Sibal said that all these matters have ramifications, adding that the single judge bench's order "should not take away right of appeal".

Dave however urged the court to pass an order on his stay application and said, "I bow down to suggestion, but i need protection. At 80-years (of age) I don't want to be prosecuted...Milords may pass an order on stay application. Don't leave me with a remedy. Lordships may tell all parties to keep their hands off. Heavens will not fall milords.Are we going to be subject to such vexatious prosecutions".

The court however orally said, "by making any comments or observations we do not want to influence the single judges mind. You can make request before the single judge".

Meanwhile the counsel appearing for the complainant said that it was not that pursuant to single judge bench's order was Devaraju made made an accused. To this Dave said, "Due to the single judge bench observations I will be left remediless". Raghavan at this stage submitted, "We will see if any findings are recorded against him". 

Advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty submitted that notice will have to issued. 

Singhvi meanwhile sought some time to make submissions for two minutes; to this the court said at this stage it was only considering issuance of notice and the court was not going into the merits of the case.

Singhvi however said, "Heavens will not fall if the CBI court hears the matter in January. If this appeal is entertained, then there must be some deferment". Senior advocate Maninder Singh appearing for one of the complainant's submitted that the court may fix a date for hearing. 

After hearing the parties for some time the court thereafter issued notice in the pleas. 

Background

Siddaramaiah and other petitioners have challenged a September 24 order issued by Justice M Nagaprasanna who had while upholding the Governor's sanction observed that the complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval from the Governor. The court had 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.

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".

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.

The CM's petition before the single judge 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.

Case title: Siddaramaiah v/s The State of Karnataka and Others and batch