Continuing as chief minister would dent Siddaramaiah's clean image as a man of principle. Resigning from the post would give a moral boost to the BJP in states going to the polls.
Published Sep 26, 2024 | 3:03 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 08, 2024 | 4:05 PM
The high court turning down his plea has put Siddaramaiah in an unenviable dilemma.
No one, at least in the Congress, thought that the ruse raised by the BJP several months ago, over the alleged corruption involving compensatory sites awarded by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to Parvathi, wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, would evolve into a bigger issue.
Following the high court rejecting Siddaramaiah’s petition questioning the legality of the governor approving a probe against him, the Special Court trying Peoples’ Representatives has ordered the Lokayukta police to register an FIR against the chief minister and file a probe report in three months.
The developments have made Siddaramaiah, who has been hitherto known as an honest politician wedded to social justice, face an unenviable dilemma.
On the one hand, continuing as chief minister would dent his clean image as a man of principle. On the other, resigning from the post would give a moral boost to the BJP and its campaign against the Congress in states going to the polls.
His resignation might also result in anarchy in the state Congress since there is no other consensus candidate for the post.
While Congress might have to deal with its problems to morally and politically take on the BJP, the issue itself has brought to the fore many dimensions of political corruption, and the judiciary’s selective interpretation and expansion of the meaning of corruption in this case.
MUDA had acquired agricultural land in Kesare village, 20 km from Mysuru city, along with 3.5 acres belonging to a Dalit farmer. Between 1998 and 2004, the land went through a spate of notifications and de-notifications, making the issue more complex.
In 2004, Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law purchased the 3.5 acres from the Dalit owner and later gifted it to his sister in 2010. Later, MUDA notified and acquired the land, for which Parvathi demanded suitable compensation. By then, Siddaramaiah had become the chief minister.
However, MUDA decided to compensate landowners by providing developed sites and money, instead of compensating fully with money corresponding to the market value. Accordingly, Parvathi was awarded 14 sites in the new extension of Mysuru city.
The BJP’s case is that Parvathi has been unduly compensated by providing sites worth ₹56 crore. In defence, the Congress argued that when MUDA made such a decision, Siddaramaiah was not in power, and the authority was led by the BJP.
It also said that Siddaramaiah had not ordered or signed any document to pressure MUDA or its officials to attract the provision of the Prevention Of Corruption Act.
The BJP created a ruckus in the previous Assembly session over the issue and also took out a padayatra from Bengaluru to Mysuru to mobilise people. The Congress countered it through pubic meetings in all towns between Bengaluru and Mysuru.
Subsequently, three citizens approached Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot, seeking his approval to file a complaint against the chief minister under the anti-corruption act.
The governor sought the opinion of the Cabinet, which met in the thoughtful absence of the chief minister, and recommended discarding the ‘motivated complaint’. It also provided the Raj Bhavan with the relevant details of the case.
However, the governor did not heed the Cabinet’s recommendation and accorded approval for investigation under 17-A and also under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Accordingly, the appellants filed a complaint against the chief minister in the special court.
The chief minister challenged the move in the high court and requested the quashing of the FIR in the special court, saying the sanction given by the governor was improper and the materials had no merit to invoke the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A high court bench of Justice Nagaprasanna stayed the proceedings of the special court and heard the matter for many days. Senior lawyers like Abhishek Singvi appeared for Siddaramaiah along with many others and Tushar Mehta, the solicitor general, and others appeared for the governor and respondents.
The high court primarily examined whether the governor’s approval was proper and legal. It was a question of law. But the judge, surprisingly, also posed the question of whether there was prima facies a case of corruption.
On 24 September, the high court gave its judgement in favour of the governor on the question of law and merit of the case.
Thus:
1. Justice Nagaprasanna’s bench upheld the governor’s action sanctioning investigation under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. While prior sanction under Section 17-A is necessary for investigating a person in an official position, it is not correct that it should be obtained only by a police officer. This does not apply to a private complaint. However, prior permission is required to file a private complaint under Section 17-A. And it also said that the complainant has followed due procedure.
3. However, the governor, while approving investigation under Article 17-A, also used the expression sanction for investigation under Section 218 of the BNSS. The trial stage arises only after the investigation.
Therefore, since the respondents did not argue under Article 218, it is not correct to say that the bench summarily rejected the argument under Article 218. It confined its decision about Article 17-A.
4. Most importantly, the bench also upheld the complaint that the chief minister was an illegal beneficiary.
The bench said that Siddaramaiah held various positions during 1998-2023, and hence there was reason to suspect that he had received special benefits.
Instead of acquiring the land, the MUDA has given 14 sites worth ₹56 crore in the heart of Mysuru only to the chief minister’s wife. Hence, there was sufficient reason to suspect misuse of position. Therefore, the judge wondered if the case in question was not fit for investigation, and which other case would warrant a probe.
However, the intolerance in the attitude and language used by the judge while dealing with the matter bordered conclusion over suspicion.
Moreover, the bench said that there was not much substance in the argument that there was no documentary evidence to prove the chief minister’s involvement in the MUDA decisions.
On page 185 of the order, the bench said:
“ …Even if the act of the public servant is not improper or cannot be held to be illegal, if any undue advantage is obtained for himself or any other person by abusing his position as a public servant, he would attract the wrath of the section”.
This interpretation of explanation No. 2 of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act which made documentary evidence to prove abuse of power could be the most controversial aspect of the judgement.
The Congress may question the logic behind this definition being applied only to Siddaramaiah’s case. It might expose the impropriety of the logic in a higher bench.
But the civil society should demand the application of the definition to everyone, including Narendra Modi and the BJP.
To sum up, Justice Nagaprasanna not only upheld the governor’s order to probe the chief minister in the MUDA case but also said that prima facie Siddaramaiah was guilty and an investigation was necessary to connect the dots. This enthusiasm of the bench would bias the investigation which has yet to take place. The judgement of the lower courts has now been questioned by many.
This being an order of a single-judge bench, many of its legal interpretations could be challenged in higher benches. But the moral high standing of the Congress over a corrupt BJP has taken a hit. The chief minister must answer a moral question, if not a legal one, in this regard.
The court has raised a crucial question. If not for the position and power wielded by the beneficiary’s husband, would the MUDA have gone out of its way to compensate to the extent of ₹56 crore? And was it not a misuse of position? And now that an inquiry has been ordered, does propriety allow Siddaramaiah to continue as the chief minister?
The BJP is now taking the moral high ground, hitting the streets to demand Siddaramaiah’s resignation. This is the real intention of the BJP since Siddaramaiah has an unadulterated position and public standing against communalism and RSS. It is also true that none of these public standings have been translated into action in containing communal forces in the state.
If Siddaramaiah resigns, the BJP will get a new weapon against the Congress in the upcoming state elections. For the time being, the Congress may continue the legal battle with Siddaramaiah holding the chief minister’s office.
The higher benches made decide the case in anybody’s favour but a black spot will remain on Siddaramaiah’s political innings.
Had the sites been returned to MUDA at the initial stage of the case and the moral high ground been maintained, Siddaramaiah would have maintained the moral strength to take on the corrupt and immoral BJP.
BJP indeed has no moral right to question Siddaramaiah. But the civil society should ask questions to the chief minister.
The tragedy of most of the civil society in Karnataka is that it has started to back Congress blindly due to the fear of the BJP and growing fascism.
Another tragi-comedy of the situation is that if Siddaramaiah resigns, communal forces would be happy. And if he doesn’t, corrupt forces across party lines would be happy.
(Shivasundar is an activist and a columnist based in Bengaluru. Views are personal. Edited by Majnu Babu).
