HC begins hearing in K’taka CM’s case; Solicitor General defends Guv’s decision
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Saturday resumed hearing the writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against the decision of Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot to give consent for his prosecution in the alleged irregularities in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
The Bench, headed by Justice M Nagaprasanna, is hearing the matter, with Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta presenting submissions on behalf of the Governor.
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi had already presented his arguments on behalf of CM Siddaramaiah, seeking to quash the Governor’s order.
Defending the Governor, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the decision was made lawfully and followed due process.
The Governor took cognisance of a 91-page Cabinet decision to withdraw the show cause notice to CM Siddaramaiah and reject the petition against him.
Mehta emphasised that since Cabinet ministers are selected by the Chief Minister himself, it is not imperative for the Governor to consider the Cabinet’s decision when a complaint is against the CM.
He added that it is unlikely for the Cabinet to take a decision against the CM.
Mehta further submitted that the relief package ratio was changed from 40:60 to 50:50, and that CM Siddaramaiah’s son, former MLA Yathindra Siddaramaiah, had attended the General Body Meeting of MUDA in this regard.
Alternative sites were allotted in a reputed locality.
Despite all this, the state Cabinet took a biased decision in support of CM Siddaramaiah, he argued.
In this context, the Governor made an independent decision in the matter using his discretion.
The Governor took into account the Cabinet’s advice, CM Siddaramaiah’s clarification, and the petitioner’s complaint.
Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, Tushar Mehta submitted that those in power often believe they will not face punishment.
The Bench observed that under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the police are not supposed to take up an investigation without prior permission.
However, it is not necessary for the police to obtain permission themselves; anyone can approach the appropriate authorities to obtain such permission.
Tushar Mehta further submitted that no investigation is required to grant permission for prosecution for administrative matters.
Under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is decided whether an investigation is required or not needed.
He argued that the Governor is not obliged to respond to every clarification provided by the Cabinet and CM Siddaramaiah in this case.
The Governor’s order clearly states his position, and not everything can be explained at this stage due to the potential for destruction of evidence.
Mehta also pointed out that the charges in all three complaints against CM Siddaramaiah were the same, and there was no need to issue a show cause notice in connection with the other two complaints.
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday had adjourned the hearing of the writ petition filed by CM Siddaramaiah challenging Governor Gehlot’s decision to give his nod to launch a probe against the veteran Congress leader, to Saturday (August 31).
Singhvi had argued that the Governor did not follow the principles of natural justice when granting consent for prosecution against CM Siddaramaiah. He also mentioned that the Governor did not consider the advice given by the Cabinet in this matter.
At this point, the Bench had questioned Singhvi whether the Governor is required to take the advice of the Cabinet in matters involving complaints against the CM.
Singhvi responded that the Governor has to take such advice, maintaining that there are limitations to the Governor’s powers.
Represented by senior counsel Singhvi, the CM has sought interim relief as well as quashing of the Governor’s order, calling it unconstitutional.