Bengaluru, The Karnataka High Court on Thursday completed its hearing on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the legality of Governor Thaaaarchand Gehlot's approval for prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case, and reserved your orders.
The court also expanded its interim order of August 19 directing the special court of people's representatives that was scheduled to hear complaints against him in the case to adjourn his proceedings until the petition is disposed of.
"The interim order heard, reserved and in force will continue until the petition is disposed of," Justice M. Nagaprasanna said after completing the hearing.On August 16, the Governor imposed penalty under Section 17A of the Law Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for committing the alleged offenses mentioned in the petitions by activists Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.
On August 19, Siddaramaiah approached the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor's order.
In the petition, the Prime Minister stated that the sanction order was issued without due care, in violation of legal mandates and against constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution. of India.Siddaramaiah sought quashing of the Governor's order alleging that his decision is legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed and motivated by extraneous considerations.
Representing the Prime Minister, prominent lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Professor Ravivarma Kumar made presentations during today's hearing.
Singhvi said that the entire five-six page order of the accused Governor has only one point: "I am deciding independently, I am not governed by you (Cabinet)." "The Governor has not gone beyond those five pages to add a word about how not being bound by these people (Cabinet) I find how, what, when or where the CM is a prima facie accomplice, and that is why I grant him sanction," he said. saying.
He was referring to the Governor describing as "irrational" the decision taken by the Council of Ministers advising him to withdraw his show cause notice to the Prime Minister and reject the application for judicial sanction.
Before granting sanction for prosecution, the Governor, based on a petition filed by advocate and activist T.J. Abraham, had issued a "show cause notice" on July 26 directing the Prime Minister to submit his response to the allegations against him within seven days as to why permission should not be granted to prosecute him. Singhvi He said that the Governor, without any material, says that the Cabinet is ultimately headed by the CM, so it must be biased.
To this, the judge, pointing out that there is a "concept of unconscious or subconscious bias", asked: "which cabinet will say that action should be taken against its leader? which cabinet will approve saying: he is our CM, the Governor has sought the opinion of the Cabinet and this Cabinet is going to allow sanction or approval for prosecution. Which Cabinet will do that and go against its leader?
Singhvi responded by saying that the Governor has not reasoned and claimed that this is a case of "alleged bias". Terming Siddaramaiah's case as unusual, he said that the three complainants point to one person (Siddaramaiah) in the 23-year-old case. "This man (Siddaramaiah) has been a Minister (whenever he was in power) since the 1980s and has held several portfolios. (He has held) no particular portfolio on this issue, no particular file or decision, recommendation or approval. ..you can't find a case like this."
The senior lawyer said the Governor has not reasoned why he (CM) is prima facie guilty or why the Cabinet is wrong.
Further speaking about the penalty under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he said, it is for the investigating officer to first form an opinion that the inquiry or investigation is justified. Stating that the Governor's order granting the Permission for prosecution was issued in excessive haste and with a predetermined mind and shows "cherry picking", Singhvi said this case proves beyond doubt that there is "cherry picking".
He said: "Where the present case was unduly and hastily expedited, while several other applications for prior approval remained pending for a long period (before the Governor)."
Seeking to highlight the background of respondent TJ Abraham, Singhvi said that he is a habitual litigator who has a well-documented history of blackmail, extortion and abuse of legal process. To this, the judge said, "...a complainant will always face these problems." In response to this, Singhvi asked, "Will the Supreme Court impose costs of Rs 25 lakh on a complainant? There can be complainants without this.. "
Citing the Governor's findings while granting the sanction, Prof Ravivarma Kumar said: "...in the last 50 years, Siddaramaiah is the only man who has served the full five-year term (as CM), and is now re-elected , and the Governor Says Democracy is in Danger."
Kumar, further pointing out one of the findings of the Governor, said: "This betrays the mind of the Governor. The political vendetta that he has committed by taking this decision. We have attributed political motives to him and he has not refuted it..."
The court also expanded its interim order of August 19 directing the special court of people's representatives that was scheduled to hear complaints against him in the case to adjourn his proceedings until the petition is disposed of.
"The interim order heard, reserved and in force will continue until the petition is disposed of," Justice M. Nagaprasanna said after completing the hearing.On August 16, the Governor imposed penalty under Section 17A of the Law Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 for committing the alleged offenses mentioned in the petitions by activists Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.
On August 19, Siddaramaiah approached the High Court challenging the legality of the Governor's order.
In the petition, the Prime Minister stated that the sanction order was issued without due care, in violation of legal mandates and against constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution. of India.Siddaramaiah sought quashing of the Governor's order alleging that his decision is legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed and motivated by extraneous considerations.
Representing the Prime Minister, prominent lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Professor Ravivarma Kumar made presentations during today's hearing.
Singhvi said that the entire five-six page order of the accused Governor has only one point: "I am deciding independently, I am not governed by you (Cabinet)." "The Governor has not gone beyond those five pages to add a word about how not being bound by these people (Cabinet) I find how, what, when or where the CM is a prima facie accomplice, and that is why I grant him sanction," he said. saying.
He was referring to the Governor describing as "irrational" the decision taken by the Council of Ministers advising him to withdraw his show cause notice to the Prime Minister and reject the application for judicial sanction.
Before granting sanction for prosecution, the Governor, based on a petition filed by advocate and activist T.J. Abraham, had issued a "show cause notice" on July 26 directing the Prime Minister to submit his response to the allegations against him within seven days as to why permission should not be granted to prosecute him. Singhvi He said that the Governor, without any material, says that the Cabinet is ultimately headed by the CM, so it must be biased.
To this, the judge, pointing out that there is a "concept of unconscious or subconscious bias", asked: "which cabinet will say that action should be taken against its leader? which cabinet will approve saying: he is our CM, the Governor has sought the opinion of the Cabinet and this Cabinet is going to allow sanction or approval for prosecution. Which Cabinet will do that and go against its leader?
Singhvi responded by saying that the Governor has not reasoned and claimed that this is a case of "alleged bias". Terming Siddaramaiah's case as unusual, he said that the three complainants point to one person (Siddaramaiah) in the 23-year-old case. "This man (Siddaramaiah) has been a Minister (whenever he was in power) since the 1980s and has held several portfolios. (He has held) no particular portfolio on this issue, no particular file or decision, recommendation or approval. ..you can't find a case like this."
The senior lawyer said the Governor has not reasoned why he (CM) is prima facie guilty or why the Cabinet is wrong.
Further speaking about the penalty under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, he said, it is for the investigating officer to first form an opinion that the inquiry or investigation is justified. Stating that the Governor's order granting the Permission for prosecution was issued in excessive haste and with a predetermined mind and shows "cherry picking", Singhvi said this case proves beyond doubt that there is "cherry picking".
He said: "Where the present case was unduly and hastily expedited, while several other applications for prior approval remained pending for a long period (before the Governor)."
Seeking to highlight the background of respondent TJ Abraham, Singhvi said that he is a habitual litigator who has a well-documented history of blackmail, extortion and abuse of legal process. To this, the judge said, "...a complainant will always face these problems." In response to this, Singhvi asked, "Will the Supreme Court impose costs of Rs 25 lakh on a complainant? There can be complainants without this.. "
Citing the Governor's findings while granting the sanction, Prof Ravivarma Kumar said: "...in the last 50 years, Siddaramaiah is the only man who has served the full five-year term (as CM), and is now re-elected , and the Governor Says Democracy is in Danger."
Kumar, further pointing out one of the findings of the Governor, said: "This betrays the mind of the Governor. The political vendetta that he has committed by taking this decision. We have attributed political motives to him and he has not refuted it..."
