Published Aug 31, 2024 | 6:07 PM ⚊ Updated Sep 01, 2024 | 12:42 PM
The proposed AI-powered township project aims to acquire over 7,481 acres of farmland across nine revenue villages near Bidadi.
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday, 31 August, adjourned the hearing of the plea filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenging the order issued by Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot permitting to prosecution of him in the MUDA land allotment case to Monday, 2 September.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the chief minister’s plea seeking quashing of the Governor’s order granting sanction to prosecute Siddaramiah in the alleged multi-crore scam relating to MUDA.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta made submissions on behalf of the Governor, while advocate AM Singhvi concluded his submissions on behalf of the Chief Minister earlier this week.
On 19 August the high court directed the trial court to defer proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah till the challenge is heard by it.
As reported by Livelaw, the Governor’s office told the Karnataka High Court that the sanction granted by the Governor to prosecute Siddaramaiah was done after an “elaborate application of mind”, adding that the sanction order had considered everything.
On the application of mind by the Governor while granting sanction, the SG thereafter referred to a note placed by principal secretary to the Governor on the complaint by TJ Abraham adding that the complainant appeared and was heard by the Governor. Mehta pointed to a cabinet note, and also went through the charts and stated that the Governor dictated his own prima facie conclusions after considering each and every allegation and the reply of the petitioner.
Contending the Governor’s role, Mehta noted, “As a Governor I have to first see whether complaint and documents are placed and make out a cognizable offence. It may result in a chargesheet report on 173 or a closure report. But that is not a call he is permitted to take. He can’t say that ‘I have examined and the serious cognizable offence is made out’…He will only go by prima facie case whether it needs to be investigated by an Investigating agency or not…And any order to be passed has to be on application of mind and extent will be on case to case basis and facts of the case.”
Tushar Mehta’s submissions focused on clarifying the legal distinctions between Sections 17A and 19, the nature of the Governor’s responsibilities, and the procedural aspects related to notices and natural justice in the context of the case.
Mehta further contented that if as per the petitioner, the criminal liability of the wife cannot be attributed to the husband, then sanction was not required under Section 17A and they should withdraw their petition. He noted, “What are we arguing for. It is a self-defeating suicidal argument”.
Section 17A of the Act deals with the procedures for inquiry or investigation into offenses related to recommendations or decisions made by a public servant in the course of their official duties. Meanwhile, Section 19 of the Act outlines the requirement for obtaining “previous sanction” before prosecuting a public servant.
The Bar and Bench reported that Mehta submitted that the Advocate General’s opinion in the matter was copy-pasted verbatim, including every comma and full stop, in the opinion drafted by the State Cabinet.
This opinion was also reproduced verbatim in the Chief Secretary’s note, as well as the Chief Minister’s reply to the Governor’s show cause notice, Mehta said.
“The petition (by CM Siddaramaiah) then contains the same averments page by page, para by para. The irony is, Bangalore is the IT capital of the country. There is an artificial intelligence available. They could have used artificial intelligence at least to paraphrase what is being copied. On the lighter side, they say that artificial intelligence can never match natural stupidity. This is the collective non-application of mind,” he added.
The counsel proposed that the trial court should be permitted to proceed with the case, with the stipulation that such proceedings would be contingent on the outcome of the High Court’s petition.
Justice Nagaprasanna, however, declined this request.
He explained, “The reason I issued the interim order is to ensure that no subordinate court continues with the proceedings while I am reviewing the matter. It’s essential to determine whether sanction is required and whether the process followed is correct. If you want to expedite the resolution, we can do so. My intention is not to delay this unnecessarily, but rather to ensure a thorough examination of the issues at hand.”
The petition filed by Siddaramiah has claimed that the sanction order which was communicated to the Chief Secretary on 17 August, 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.
Siddaramiah had filed his writ petition under articles 226 and 227. The petition further read, “The impugned order, passed on 17.08.2024, is in gross violation of the law, principles of natural justice, unconstitutional, ultravires section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 218 of BNSS, established judicial precedents, and therefore necessitates judicial intervention by this Hon’ble court in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. ”
It also claimed the order of prosecution is “tainted with malafides and is part of a concerted effort to destabilize the duly elected government of Karnataka for political reasons.”
The petition asked the high court to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 16 August passed by the Governor of Karnataka. It further asked to “Pass such other orders as this court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
In the order of prosecution, the Governor said he is prima facie “satisfied” that the allegations and the supporting materials disclose the commission of offences.
The Governor also termed as “irrational” the decision taken by the Council of Ministers advising him to withdraw his showcause notice to the Chief Minister and to reject the application seeking prosecution sanction.
The order, accessed by South First, stated that the sanction of the prosecution was granted under section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and section 218 of the Bharathiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhitha, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences mentioned in the petitions.
The Governor had also claimed that it is a “Settled legal principle” that the person against who, allegations are made, should not be empowered to decide the course of action.
