The order of the Karnataka high court directing an investigation into allegations of corruption against chief minister Siddaramaiah and the direction of the Special Court for People’s Representatives to the Lokayukta police to initiate a probe will hopefully lead to the uncovering of the truth.
The Lokayukta police will now investigate the alleged irregularities in the allocation of 38,284 square feet of land to the CM’s wife in lieu of 1,48,104 sq feet the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (Muda), a government agency, acquired from her. While the chief minister maintains that his wife was only compensated for the loss of her land, the petitioners who moved the governor seeking his prosecution alleged that the state exchequer suffered a loss of crores in the exchange.
The governor had issued sanctions for investigation against Mr Siddaramaiah under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and for prosecution under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhita, 2023, which deals with prosecution of public servants. The high court found that the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation but refused to uphold the governor’s sanction for the prosecution of the chief minister.
While it would cause much damage in the current Indian scenario to ask holders of public offices to vacate their positions whenever they are under investigation for alleged irregularities, the CM’s response that the BJP was trying to destabilise his government and that the Opposition party had also indulged in corrupt practices is too stereotypical.
The whole episode should in fact help reopen discussions on the 2018 introduction of Section 17A in PCA, which makes sanction from a higher authority mandatory even for launching an investigation into allegations of corruption against public servants. This section puts arbitrary powers in the hands of the executive which can turn into a protective cover for wrongdoers. It’s time the Parliament took a relook at this clause.
