Siddaramaiah gets relief in MUDA case, next hearing on Aug 29
Bengaluru, Aug 19 : Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Monday received much-needed relief from the High Court in connection with a writ petition seeking to quash the order of Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot, sanctioning an investigation against him.
As a result of the order, Siddaramaiah obtained temporary immunity from the possibility of an FIR being filed and an investigation against him. The court has adjourned the matter until August 29, and until then, the lower court is bound not to issue any orders or directions.
The bench, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, also directed the Special Court for MLAs/MPs not to pass any orders until August 29 regarding the private complaints submitted by social activists T.J. Abraham and Snehamayi Krishna related to the MUDA case. The Special Court had reserved the matter for decision on Tuesday (August 20).
Supreme Court counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Siddaramaiah while Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General of the Central Government, argued on behalf of the Governor's Special Secretary in the case.
After hearing the arguments and counterarguments, the bench stated that it had provided a hearing to all parties. The bench noted that if the Special Court for MLAs/MPs were to pronounce its order, it would render the proceedings of the High Court moot and thus ordered the lower court to adjourn the case until August 29.
Senior counsel and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta requested the court to adjourn the matter to Tuesday, as the copy of the petition had only been provided to the Governor on August 18.
However, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi objected, insisting that the matter be taken up immediately, as the Special Court was set to take up the case on Tuesday and interim relief was needed. He argued that it was unnecessary to delay proceedings simply because the Governor’s office had just received the writ petition.
Singhvi further submitted that a response had already been provided for the show-cause notice issued to the Siddaramaiah and maintained that the petitions for which consent for prosecution was granted had malicious intent.
He argued that the Governor had not considered the advice of the Cabinet before ordering the investigation and that no legal justification was provided for the sanctioning of the prosecution.
Singhvi claimed that the move was an attempt to destabilise the government and that the Chief Minister had not made any recommendations or decisions related to the MUDA files.
He also pointed out that while the Governor acted on the complaint against Siddaramaiah the same day it was filed, he had not taken any action on 12 pending complaints. According to Article 163, the Cabinet's decision to reject the petition should have been respected, he asserted.
Singhvi further emphasised the background of one of the petitioners, T.J. Abraham, should have been scrutinised, noting that he had been fined by the Supreme Court.
In response, Tushar Mehta argued that the Cabinet's decision was made to protect the Siddaramaiah and asserted that the Governor has the freedom to sanction prosecution against the Siddaramaiah. He cited a judgment by a five-judge bench to support the Governor's decision and argued that no interim relief should be granted.