The Karnataka High Court has dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah‘s petition challenging Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot‘s decision to sanction prosecution of the Congress leader in the alleged MUDA land scam case. A bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said the Governor “did apply his mind in abundance” and could, therefore, take an “independent decision” on calling for the prosecution.
“The order (by the Governor) does not suffer from non-application of mind… There is no fault in the Governor’s actions. The facts narrated need investigation. The petition stands dismissed.”
The court also dismissed a plea by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Chief Minister, to stay its order for two weeks. The judge said he could not stay his own order.
Mr Siddaramaiah had argued the order sanctioning his prosecution is illegal since the Governor could not make such a recommendation without the state Cabinet’s approval. Appearing for the Chief Minister, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi had argued the Governor “hasn’t applied his mind”.
As such, Mr Singhvi argued, the sanction to prosecute is “fully reviewable”.
“You are negating the mandate of the people… With no inputs taken from me (referring to the state government) by the Governor… this order is judicially reviewable,” he told the High Court.
The court, though, suggested the Governor’s sanction could be viewed as an “independent decision”, and that Mr Gehlot, in such a case, “need not fall back on ministers’ advice”.
The Governor’s decision to greenlight prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah triggered a furious political spat in the southern state, with the Congress veteran accusing Mr Gehlot of acting as a representative of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led central government rather than the President.
Governor Gehlot’s clearance to prosecute the Chief Minister came on August 17.
Governor’s ‘Prosecute’ Nod Is “Illegal”
Siddaramaiah, who has also urged the Governor to not “pick and choose” in permitting prosecution, had earlier argued Mr Gehlot’s decision is “in violation of the principles of natural justice”.
In his strongly-worded petition he further warned the court that “in the absence of interim relief… there is a grave and imminent risk of irreparable harm (to his) reputation”.