Karnataka HC to pronounce orders Tuesday in CM Siddaramaiah’s plea against Governor’s sanction for probe in MUDA land grant to wife

The verdict connected Tuesday is scheduled to beryllium pronounced by Justice M Nagaprasanna who has made landmark judgments successful the past connected the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, aft it was amended successful 2018 with the instauration of Section 17 A to supply further extortion to nationalist servants from being investigated connected a frivolous basis.

In July 2023, Justice Nagaprasanna ruled successful the ‘Dr V Ashok versus Karnataka Lokayukta case’ that a anterior authorisation from a competent authorization is mandatory against a nationalist servant nether the amended Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the filing of a lawsuit of corruption by the constabulary connected the ground of a backstage ailment filed successful a court.

In the lawsuit of the Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah, the Governor’s anterior authorisation has been obtained by 3 backstage complainants but the authorisation bid of the Governor and its ingredients person been called into question.

In the arguments that concluded connected September 12, it was argued connected behalf of Siddaramaiah that the Governor had failed to rationalise his August 16 bid to assistance support to backstage persons to record cases against the CM contempt the authorities furniture advising the Governor against granting the sanction.

Once the Governor had drawn the decision that determination was a lawsuit to beryllium investigated, helium should person rationalised successful his last bid the reasons for the conclusion, the elder counsel for the Karnataka CM argued portion asking the Court to nonstop the authorisation bid backmost to the Governor.

The Governor “cannot presume the proposal of the furniture of ministers is biased and presume discretionary powers” and “must explicate orders that the furniture determination suffers from manifest irrationality”, the elder counsel argued.

Siddaramaiah’s counsel besides argued that the Karnataka Governor showed antithetic urgency successful granting the authorisation for filing cases against the Karnataka CM but astatine the aforesaid clip took astir 3 years to cull a akin authorisation sought nether Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for conducting investigations against erstwhile BJP curate Shashikala Jolle.

Karnataka Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty besides argued that the authorisation of the Governor was sought prematurely by the complainants and that a constabulary serviceman is mandated by Section 17A to beryllium the authorization to question authorisation aft a preliminary probe.

During the arguments, Justice Nagaprasanna reiterated his presumption that the requirements nether Section 17A bash not mandate that lone a constabulary serviceman tin question support for initiating an enquiry against a nationalist servant.

Ravi Varma Kumar, elder advocator and erstwhile advocator general, who besides appeared connected behalf of Siddaramaiah, argued that the Governor’s authorisation bid was flawed since it did not instrumentality into information documents that showed that the onshore allotment to the CM’s woman was done arsenic compensation for 3.16 acre of onshore taken implicit illegally by Mysore authorities.

He besides argued that corruption cannot beryllium implied successful the lawsuit spanning implicit 23 years since nary decisions were taken by Siddaramaiah connected the onshore erstwhile helium was successful powerfulness and that the allotment of 14 lodging sites arsenic compensation was done during the tenure of the BJP.

The judgement successful the lawsuit is expected to clarify whether the extortion accorded nether Section 17A successful 2018 to nationalist servants from facing frivolous cases filed by backstage individuals requires competent authorities to supply reasoned orders for granting oregon denying sanction.

Some of the advocates for the 3 backstage complainants against the Karnataka CM person argued that the Governor’s authorisation nether Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is legally valid since it allows the commencement of a probe into whether Siddaramaiah tin beryllium linked to the onshore allotments made to his woman during the BJP’s tenure successful 2021.