Cabinet advice to not prosecute Siddaramaiah in MUDA case was copy-paste: SG Tushar Mehta to Karnataka High Court

The Governor of Karnataka was justified in granting sanction to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the MUDA case as the State Cabinet's advice against granting such sanction was a "copy-paste" opinion made without any "application of mind," Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued before the Karnataka High Court today. .The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing arguments by various respondents (the State Governor and private complainants) contesting Chief Minister (CM) Siddaramaiah's petition against the prosecution sanction. The case involves allegations of corruption and irregular allocation of land by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to Siddaramaiah's wife..Representing Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot, SG Mehta submitted today 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. .Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appeared for one of the complainants who had sought sanction from the Governor to prosecute Siddaramaiah. He argued that there was colossal fraud involved and that it was apparent that things had been engineered to allow an impermissible transfer of land to Siddaramaiah's wife. "Here, this an ex-facie established case for an investigation. When uniform replies have been filed by government authorities, how can any State authority conduct an investigation?" he added.Representing another complainant, Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi added that the State Cabinet is disentitled from having a say in the matter. "My submission is that the council of ministers by virtue of the fact that they become interested in the matter, are disentitled from advising the Governor," he said. .The counsel representing another complainant (TJ Abraham) maintained that there has been a misuse of the Chief Minister's office by Siddaramaiah. A concern was also raised that Justice Nagaprasanna's decision to stay trial court proceedings while the High Court hears Siddaramaiah's plea was frustrating the special court's proceedings. .The counsel suggested that the trial court could be allowed to continue hearing the matter, with a condition that such proceedings would be subject to the outcome of the petition before the High Court. Justice Nagaprasanna, however, refused to accede to the request."See, why I granted the interim order? When I am hearing the matter, no subordinate court will continue with the proceedings. That is not correct. That's the reason I stalling it. I am hearing it... Whether sanction is required, whether it is correct - I have to decide ... If you want to finish fast, we will finish fast. I am not wanting to hold this for long," the judge said. .The matter will be heard next on Monday (September 2) afternoon when the respondents are expected to finish their submissions. The Court's earlier interim order staying trial court proceedings has been extended till then. .Senior Advocates Dr. AM Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar represented Siddaramaiah today. Primary submissions by Siddaramaiah's counsel already concluded earlier this week, although Singhvi had said that he would make rejoinder submissions after the respondents finish their arguments.