Conduct of neutral, non-partisan probe necessary, says K’taka Guv allowing prosecution against CM

PTI, Aug 17, 2024, 2:30 PM IST

Granting sanction for prosecution against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment ‘scam’, Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has said it is very necessary to conduct a neutral, objective, and non-partisan investigation.

He said he is prima facie “satisfied” that the allegations and the supporting materials disclose 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.

“Upon perusal of the petition along with the materials in support of the allegations in the petitions and subsequent reply of Siddaramaiah and the advise of the state cabinet along with the legal opinion, it seems to me that there are two versions in relation to the same set of facts,” the Governor said in his decision.

He said, “It is very necessary that a neutral, objective and non- partisan investigation be conducted. I am prima facie satisfied that the allegations and the supporting materials disclose commission of offences.” In view of the facts and circumstances, Gehlot said, he is satisfied that sanction can be accorded against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on the allegations of having committed the offences as mentioned in the petitions of T J Abraham, Pradeep Kumar S P and Snehamayi Krishna.

“Hence, I hereby accord sanction against the Chief Minister under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for the commission of the alleged offences as mentioned in the petitions,” he added.

Based on a petition filed by advocate-activist T J Abraham, Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot had issued a “showcause notice” on July 26 directing the Chief Minister to submit his reply to the allegations against him within seven days as to why permission for prosecution should not be granted against him.

The Karnataka government had on August 1 “strongly advised” the Governor to withdraw his “showcause notice” to the Chief Minister and alleged “gross misuse of the Constitutional Office ” of the Governor. It had also advised him to reject the said application by denying prior approval and sanction as requested by the petitioner Abraham.

Pointing to the constitution of a committee under the chairmanship of Venkatachalapathy, IAS, and a high-level single member inquiry committee under the ‘Commission of Inquiry Act 1952’ to probe the alleged scam, he said, it appears from the terms of reference of the high-level single member inquiry committee that there are serious allegations involving illegal allotment of alternative sites, illegal allotment of land and irregularities in allocation of land.

Gehlot said, constituting a committee under an IAS officer and immediately forming one more committee under a retired Judge of the High Court and the Government’s “own acceptance that there is a potential big ticket scam in the allotment of sites by MUDA does not inspire much confidence.” “It is a well-settled legal principle that the person against whom allegations are made, should not be empowered to decide the course of action. Even after such grave allegations being involved in the present matter and the fact that the materials prima facie support the allegations, therefore, the decision taken by the Council of Ministers is irrational,” he said.

The Governor noted that in the present case, the petitions have been filed seeking grant of sanction against Siddaramaiah, and the resolution of the Cabinet has been passed by Cabinet colleagues of Siddaramaiah, who have been appointed on his advice.

“Since the sanction is sought against the Chief Minister himself, the surrounding circumstances of placing the showcause notice before the cabinet and the decision of the Cabinet advising me to withdraw the notice, would not inspire confidence to act on such advice of the Cabinet,” he said.

He further pointed out that the subject of binding of the advice of the Council of Ministers for Governor and discretionary power of the Governor during special circumstances is well discussed and decided by the five Judges bench of the Supreme Court.

He cited an SC decision in a case, which said, “If on these facts and circumstances, the Governor cannot act in his own discretion there would be a complete break-down of Rule of Law in as much as it would then be open for Governments to refuse sanction in spite of overwhelming material showing that a prima-facie case is made out…” The Chief Minister’s Legal Advisor A S Ponnanna, a MLA, had earlier said, as per the Article 163 of the Constitution the Governor has to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers and at his discretion when provided under the Constitution.