Could Karnataka Governor have given sanction to prosecute CM Siddaramaiah? The issues before High Court

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenged the Governor’s sanction before the Karnataka HC on August 19 and the case was heard the same day by Justice M. Nagaprasanna. What are the issues the court will have to consider?

What are the allegations against Siddaramaiah?

The activists claim that the CM’s wife Parvathi received 14 housing sites from MUDA in exchange for a 3.16-acre plot of land illegally acquired by the MUDA in 2021 during the previous BJP-led government’s tenure. This allegedly resulted in a Rs. 55.80 crore loss for the state.

Previously, the Governor had issued a show-cause notice to the Chief Minister over T J Abraham’s complaint on July 26, 2024. Karnataka’s Council of Ministers met on August 1 and passed a resolution “strongly advising” the Governor to withdraw the complaint. However, the Governor sanctioned initiating proceedings against the CM under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Ingredients for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act

Governor Gehlot referred to Section 17A of the PCA in the official communication. The provision deals with investigation of offences related to public servants, allegedly committed during the “discharge of official functions or duties”. This section was introduced through an amendment to the PCA in 2018.

To investigate any such offence, the police officer must receive the “previous approval” of the “authority competent to remove” the public official from office, or the Central or state government, depending on where the public official is employed.

Two issues emerge from this for the court’s consideration. First, can sanction be given when the complaint is made by a private person? Section 17A specifically deals with the procedure when the police seek sanction to conduct an inquiry. However, in this case, no police officer approached the Governor and sanction was given based on the complaints made by three anti-corruption activists.

Second, what were the “official functions or duties” being discharged by Siddaramaiah that are allegedly related to the allegations against him? According to the Chief Minister, the original 3.16-acre plot was purchased by his brother-in-law in 2004 and gifted to his wife in 2010. When the MUDA acquired the property in 2021 and granted 14 housing sites in exchange, the Congress and Siddaramaiah were not in power.

The role of the Governor

Article 163 of the Constitution of India states, “There shall be a Council of Ministers with the Chief Minister at the head to aid and advise the Governor in the exercise of his functions, except in so far as he is by or under this Constitution required to exercise his functions or any of them in his discretion”.

The Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that the Governor of a State is “bound” by the aid and advice of this Council of Ministers. In the MUDA scam case, Siddaramaiah argues that the Governor is bound by the resolution sent by the Council of Ministers on August 1 urging him to withdraw the show-cause notice. Instead, according to Senior Advocate Dr. A M Singhvi who represented Siddaramaiah before the HC, the ‘friendly’ Governor gave sanction without justifying why the allegations require an investigation or a trial.

He stated, “The only ground he addresses is that there is conflict of interest and gives a one-para, en masse, blanket order saying the cabinet is the alter ego of the Chief Minister who is the accused”.

On the other hand, the prosecution has relied on a 2004 Supreme Court precedent in Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh. In this case, the Governor granted sanction to investigate two ministers in the MP government after the Council of Ministers had rejected the same.

In this case, the court acknowledged that “The normal rule is that the Governor acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not independently or contrary to it”. However, the court found that the Lokayukta for MP (a former Madhya Pradesh HC judge) had conducted a detailed inquiry into the same case and held that an offence should be registered against the two ministers.

The court stated, “In this case, on the material disclosed by the Report of the Lokayukta it could not have been concluded (by the Council of Ministers), at the prima-facie stage, that no case was made out”. It then held “We have, on the premises aforementioned, no hesitation to hold that the decision of the Council of Ministers was ex facie irrational whereas the decision of the Governor was not.”

The court in the MUDA scam case will have to decide if the Governor was bound by the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers to withdraw the show-cause notice and proceed no further, or if the facts and circumstances show that the allegations against Siddaramaiah hold sufficient weight to justify going ahead with the trial.