Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah challenged the validity of the permission given by the Governor. | Photo Credit: File photo
In a blow to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 24) upheld the Governor’s decision to grant permission to conduct an inquiry against him over allegations of illegality in the allotment of 14 plots by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). ) to his wife, Parvathi.
Also, the Supreme Court set aside an interim order issued on August 19 that ordered a special court in Bengaluru to postpone the decision on the appeals against Mr. Siddaramaiah, and rejected the request to stay today’s decision so that Mr.
Judge M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing Mr. Siddaramaiah challenging the validity of the permission given by the Governor.
It sees that the facts mentioned undoubtedly need to be investigated that the beneficiary of all these actions is not an outsider but members of the family of Mr. Siddaramaiah, the court said that the Governor’s order granting permission for the investigation “is not without a problem.” the use of the mind, but there is an abundance of the mind…”
The complainants had a reason to register a complaint, or seek permission from the Governor as permission under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption is mandatory in this situation.
“Section 17A of the PC Act nowhere requires the police officer to seek authorization in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 against a public servant an offense punishable under the provisions of – PC Act. It is the plaintiff’s duty to obtain such permission,” the court said.
On the power of the Governor, the court said that the Governor, in general, should act with the help and advice of the Council of Ministers, as per Article 163 of the Constitution of India, but “The Governor can take an independent decision. in exceptional circumstances and this case provides such an exception”.
“No error can be found in the Governor’s independent decision to issue an order authorizing the investigation,” the court said while clarifying that the Governor’s order only restricted authorization for investigation under Section 17A of the PC Act, and not sanctions for prosecution under Section 218 of the BNSS.
Regarding the allegations of not using common sense made in the request of Mr. Siddaramaiah, the court said it will be sufficient if the reasons are written in the file of decision-making authorities, especially the high office, and those reasons are part of the brief. order.
“The gubernatorial decision is not where we have a problem of lack of common sense. It is not a matter of the Government using its mind, but the use of the mind of the Government,” the court noted.
Making it clear that the law does not give an opportunity to a public servant before obtaining permission for investigation under Section 17A, the court said that if the authority chooses to give an opportunity, it is open to the authorities.
The court also held that the alleged haste of the Governor’s decision did not invalidate the order authorizing the investigation.
In its interim order issued on August 19, the Supreme Court had granted Mr. Abraham TJ of Bengaluru and Snehamayi Krishna of Mysuru, who had sought a special court order for the investigation. This interim order was revoked by the Supreme Court on September 24.
With this decision, the Special Court for Criminal Cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Parliament can continue to issue orders regarding the complaints filed by Mr. Abraham and Mr. Siddaramaiah.
Published – September 24, 2024 01:19 pm IST