MUDA case: Karnataka HC extends stay on trial court proceedings against CM

The Karnataka High Court on Monday, 9 September, adjourned to 12 September the hearing on chief minister Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the legality of governor Thaawarchand's sanction for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case.

The court also extended its 19 August interim order directing the special court for people's representatives that was slated to hear complaints against him in the case, to defer its proceedings till the next date of hearing.

"Heard the learned council Lakshmi Iyengar appearing for fourth respondent (Snehamayi Krishna). The respondents have all completed their submissions. The learned advocate general has also completed his submissions. For the reply submission of senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi and senior counsel Prof Ravi Varma Kumar, list this matter on 12 September at 12 pm," justice M. Nagaprasanna said.

The judge said: "On 12 September, we should be completing this."

The governor on 16 August accorded sanction 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 of Pradeep Kumar S.P., T.J. Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna.

On 19 August, Siddaramaiah moved to the high court challenging the legality of the governor's order.

In the petition, the chief minister submitted that the sanction order was issued without due application of mind, in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to 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 contending that his decision is legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous considerations.

Advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty, appearing for the state government, said this is a case where private persons have sought for prosecution approval under section 17A of Pretension of Corruption Act, adding, the condition precedent for 17A approval is preliminary inquiry be done by an investigating officer.

Noting that this is a corruption case where there is abnormal delay and, so, preliminary inquiry is mandatory, he pointed out that "this is the case of more than 20 years (old), as 1998 is the date of de-notification of the land, so there is abnormal delay."

He argued that a private person cannot be put on a higher pedestal than a police officer; so the preliminary inquiry has to be done.

Shetty said the governor does not conduct the preliminary inquiry; he only grants prior approval. But in this case he does the preliminary inquiry -- that is hearing the complainant, then issues show-cause notice, seeks clarification and reply -- which is the jurisdiction of the police officer as per the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and judgments.

The competent authority (governor) could have asked, as required under law, the investigating officer to give information. "He (governor) ought not to have sat as an investigating officer," he submitted.

"So, the allegation or application that sought for sanction under 17A ought to have been returned. If it was accepted, then preliminary inquiry information ought to have been sought from the investigating officer as per 17 A or SOP issued by the central government, instead of the complainant," he said, adding that the governor ought not have entertained the application itself.

Shetty further said: "what is crucial is the offence has to be relatable to the decision, recommendation and the office held."

Noting that the courts have said that the investigation officer should have the credible evidence based on which an opinion is formed by him for the purpose of seeking prior approval under 17A, he said, to entertain an application under 17 A, there should have been an preliminary inquiry.

He said, the investigating officer has to be only a police personnel.

The AG also pointed out that the governor has heard one of the complainants on the same day of receiving the complaint, and said, "...there is no such procedure to hear the private citizen or his complaint, especially when allegations are made against the accused whoever that may be without his presence."

He also said that "the issuing of show-cause notice -- the whole procedure itself is not contemplated in the eye of law at all."

Lakshmi Iyengar, appearing for fourth respondent Snehamayi Krishna, said "if the check period is gone into, then all this falls in place." "Ultimately what we are looking at is when are the periods in which the petitioner held a certain post and that is the time when all of this took place."

"1996 to 1999 he was the Deputy CM and that is the de-notification period. From 1999 to 2004 when the petitioner was not in power as he lost elections and that period was a lull period. During 2004 to 2007 the conversion phase started. Subsequent 2008 to 2013 transfer takes place, between 2013 to 2018, when he is CM the compensation is sought," she highlighted.

She added that 2018 to 2022 is critical as petitioner was an MLA, and he held a position of power during which 14 sites were allotted (to his wife) at the government guest house.

Every single act that has taken place has been done on behalf of the petitioner and it has been established all through, Iyengar said.