Siddaramaiah Gets Interim Relief From Karnataka High Court

A writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Monday sought to quash amongst other reliefs in the grant of sanction for his prosecution accorded by Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot on August 16 against him under Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also under 218 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha Samitha, 2023 in connection with alleged irregularities in allotment of plots to his wife by Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in Mysuru city.

After hearing CM’s writ petition, Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated “No injunction has been granted.” The High Court directed the trial court not to initiate any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah based on sanction accorded by the Governor.

The sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister was sanctioned by the Governor on August 16 while it was communicated to the Chief Secretary to the State Government on August 17. Prior to the sanction of prosecution by the Governor, 3 petitions were filed with him by T.J. Abraham, Snehamayi Krishna and S.P. Pradeepkumar alleged irregularities in the distribution of plots to Parvathi, wife of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. While giving grant for prosecution against Chief Minister, Governor stated he was prima facie satisfied with the supporting documents submitted by the petitioners to him.

Challenging the grant of sanction to prosecute him by the Governor, in his writ petition, Chief Minister explained his wife Parvathi has been compensated for having lost her 3.16 acres in Kesare of Mysuru city by Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in Mysuru city in 2021 on compensatory mechanism adopted by MUDA. MUDA allotted his wife 38, 284 sq ft in lieu of 1, 48, 104 sq ft of land lost by her owing to infringement on her property by MUDA.

The Chief Minister stated “There is no legal infirmity or procedural irregularity in the compensation given by MUDA to his wife Parvathi.”

He termed the sanction order by the Governor as legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed and motivated by extraneous considerations. The petition from Chief Minister said the sanction order of Governor is contrary to the Constitutional principles by not going by the advice of Council of Ministers in the cabinet meeting held on August 1 wherein Governor was asked to withdraw the show cause notice served on the Chief Minister. Under Article 13 of the Constitution, the advice of the Council of Ministers is binding on the Governor.

Moreover, the Chief Minister said the Governor addressed two letters on July 5 and July 15 to him and the Chief Secretary of the State Government responded and submitted a detailed reply on July 26 to the letters of the Governor. In the reply, the Chief Secretary refuted the politically motivated allegations.

Despite all factual matters being brought to his notice, the petition from the Chief Minister stated the Governor proceeded to grant sanction on August 16. Taking exception to the grant of sanction for prosecution, the Chief Minister’s petition stated the Governor acted without due application of mind and in violation of statutory mandates and sought quashing of the Governor’s order amongst other reliefs.