Relief for Siddaramaiah in MUDA case as Karnataka High Court defers special court proceedings

The Karnataka High Court on Monday asked the trial court to defer proceedings against Chief Minister (CM) Siddaramaiah related to private complaints alleging irregularities in land allocation by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA)..Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot had granted sanction to prosecute the CM on August 17. Siddaramaiah today moved the High Court and argued that it was an effort to undermine his government.Justice M Nagaprasanna heard Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented the CM, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the Governor.The Court asked the respondents to file their replies in the matter and listed it for hearing on August 29."Despite the vehement objections by the complainants against grant of an injunction, since the matter is being heard by this Court and pleadings are yet to be completed, till the next date of hearing, the court concerned shall defer its proceedings. No precipitative action qua the impugned sanction," it said..Governor Gehlot had granted sanction to prosecute the CM on private complaints by social activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna and Pradeep Kumar SP. Abraham had sought prosecution sanction in July and the Governor had issued a show cause notice to Siddaramaiah shortly thereafter.According to reports, the case involves allegations that there were irregularities in the award of around 14 plots of land in Mysuru to Siddaramaiah's wife by the MUDA..During today's hearing, Singhvi argued that there were serious constitutional issues in the matter. He went on to explain the entire background of the case and alleged that the Governor had failed to give any reasons for the grant of sanction. "You have an elected government, the elected government has the mandate of the people. Anybody on the street comes with a complaint. That complaint is made decades and decades after an incident. A friendly Governor gives sanction," Singhvi said.He added that before the Governor's sanction, the State Cabinet already had already formed a view that the complaint was frivolous and thus sanction cannot be granted. "This is based on events from 1992 to 2022," Singhvi said, adding that the Governor was bound by the Cabinet's decision.On the Governor's reasoning for sanction, Singhvi said,"He (Governor) doesn't address a single ground. Says only that there is a conflict of interest and gives one para saying the Cabinet is the alter ego of the Chief Minister."He added that the Governor had not decided even a single legal or factual issue, but only said that he is not bound by the Cabinet's decision. Singhvi contended that this way, anyone can destabilise the government and defy the public mandate.It was also submitted that the sanction had been granted at a breakneck speed..Singhvi also said that the allegation was that CM was a beneficiary."Not a decision maker - a condition for 17 A," Singhvi said, while referring to provision of Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.Section 17A provides that no police officer without official sanction "shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant" where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties."There are at least 2 conditions precedent to 17A that are missing here - no investigating agency and provided that this is a police officer who complains in respect of the decision taken by the public official, the CM in this case," Singhvi added, while explaining that the matter involved private complaints only..While concluding his arguments, Singhvi said the "whole thing" was being done to undermine the government. "Constitutional law, law, and politics are entwined. We don't live in an ivory tower, cocooned from reality. We can't say I am an Ostrich and a storm is coming so I'll shut my eyes. That's not how judges function," the senior lawyer said..SG Mehta, representing the Governor, at the outset sought to address Singhvi's argument that a "friendly Governor" had given sanction."I represent the office of the Governor. Therefore, I don't have the luxury of using adjectives such as 'friendly Governor' etc. It will not be in good taste. Suppose I also start saying subservient cabinet, or a corrupt Chief Minister. It doesn't look good," Mehta said.Though Mehta said he was not supporting or opposing any stay order, he also submitted,"Governor is a constitutional body and decisions injuncted by another constitutional body should be avoided."The counsel representing the private complainants opposed the stay order.However, the Court said it would grant the stay."Today, this court is hearing the matter. Now some order by the magistrate court in the sanction will frustrate the proceedings before this court. I, for one, will not permit that," Justice Nagaprasanna said.At this stage, Mehta suggested that the complainants can consider asking for an adjournment tomorrow before the trial court.However, Singhvi pressed for a stay."In one of the complainants, it is for orders. We have not been informed. We have learnt from the press," the senior counsel said.The Court then proceeded to stay the proceedings before the trial court till the next date of hearing..Opposition parties in Karnataka have reportedly alleged that the land meant for members of the Dalit community was usurped and fraudulently granted to Siddaramiah's wife by using forged documents, leading to a loss of thousands of crores. Siddaramaiah's brother-in-law Malikarjuna Swamy Devaraj is also alleged to have played a role in the alleged scam. The case involves allegations against top officials of MUDA as well. CM Siddaramaiah has denied all allegations. .[Read Orders]