The Karnataka High Court on Thursday, September 12 reserved its judgement on the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging the sanction granted by Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot to investigate against him in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) sites allotment complaints.
Senior Counsel and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, strongly contested the Governor’s decision, arguing that it lacked rationalisation despite contrary advice from the Karnataka Cabinet. Singhvi emphasised that the Governor must justify his conclusion and cannot assume bias in the Cabinet’s advice. "Governor has to demonstrate that 'I'm now acting in my discretionary power because of this apparent (prima facie) bias'. Second, where there is no bias shown, the demonstration to be there that the order suggesting no sanction is manifestly irrational," he said, according to Live Law.
Singhvi further pointed out discrepancies in the Governor’s handling of similar cases, citing the delayed rejection of a sanction request against former BJP ministers Murugesh Nirani, Shashikala Jolle and Union minister HD Kumaraswamy, contrasted with the swift approval in Siddaramaiah’s case. Singhvi also mentioned that the sanction request in Shashikala Jolle’s case had been pending since December 9, 2021, and was only rejected on August 9, 2024, shortly after the request for sanction against Siddaramaiah was submitted to the Governor.
"This kind of conduct that you (governor) take three years, minus 4 months, for a 17A sanction and then reject it and on the same day you issue a show cause to a person who for 23 years has not signed a file or made a recommendation. It is not just a violation of Article 14 but it is shocking,” he said. Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act 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.
“In my (Siddaramaiah) case, show cause was issued on the day the complaint was filed,” Singhvi argued.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the hearing, asked whether a sanction under Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, introduced in 2018 to shield public servants from wrongful prosecution for their decisions, can be requested prior to the initiation of a corruption case. The High Court was informed that one of the private individuals attempting to file a case against Siddaramaiah had lodged a police complaint on July 18, but it was not registered. He subsequently approached the Governor on July 26 to request sanction. After seeking the Governor's approval, a private complaint was submitted to the court on August 13, three days before the sanction was granted.
Senior Advocate and former Advocate General Ravi Varma Kumar, representing Siddaramaiah, argued that the Governor's sanction order was flawed because it failed to consider documents showing that the land allotted to the Chief Minister's wife was compensation for 3.16 acres of land illegally taken by Mysore authorities. He further contended that corruption could not be inferred in the 23-year-old case, as Siddaramaiah had made no decisions regarding the land while in power, and the allotment of 14 housing sites as compensation occurred during the BJP's tenure.
The case centres around the controversial allotment of 14 housing sites in Mysuru to Siddaramaiah's wife, BM Parvathi. These allegations have sparked criticism from the opposition BJP, which has demanded Siddaramaiah's resignation and urged for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the issue. On August 17, the Governor granted sanction under Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) after reviewing applications filed by three private complainants.