The sanction granted by Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot paves the way for an investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, at present, and not for his prosecution under the Act.
If any court has to take cognisance of the alleged offences, in case the conduct of investigation leads to the filing of a charge sheet against Mr. Siddaramaiah, then a separate sanction is required for his prosecution under Section 19 [prior sanction for prosecution] of the PC Act. This is because the Governor, at present, has granted sanction only under Section 17A of the PC Act, which is limited to permitting the investigating agency to take up the probe against a public servant into the offences alleged.
Under BNSS
Curiously, the Governor has also granted sanction for Mr. Siddaramaiah’s prosecution under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which authorises any court to even directly take cognisance of offences alleged against him under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, based on materials available before the court, without ordering any investigation.
However, if the offences under the PC Acts are clubbed with these offences under the BNS, then the courts cannot proceed further unless the Governor grants sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.
These legal positions lead to many possibilities of actions that may be initiated against Mr. Siddaramaiah as the Governor has granted sanction to three individuals — Snehamayi Krishna of Mysuru, and T.J. Abraham and Pradeep Kumar S.P. of Bengaluru — to proceed against the Chief Minister as per the law on the same set of allegations related to the alleged MUDA scam.
Though both Mr. Krishna and Mr. Abraham had sought sanction even under Section 19 of the PC Act, the Governor has limited his sanction only under Section 17A of the PC Act and Section 218 of the BNSS even though the order of sanction refers to the request made under Section 19.
Pending cases
The activists, Mr. Krishna and Mr. Abraham, have already presented separate private complaints, which are pending consideration for acceptance before the Special Court of Sessions for the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.
In Mr. Krishna’s complaint, a direction has been sought for ordering an investigation through an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation or the Lokayukta police against Mr. Siddaramaiah, his wife, her brother, and another person, and take further action as per the law.
If the court accepts this complaint and orders for a probe, then the investigating agency can proceed without any hindrance as the Governor has already accorded sanction for investigation under the PC Act. However, in case an investigation agency files a charge sheet after the investigation, then the Special Court cannot proceed further unless the Governor accords sanction for Mr. Siddaramaiah’s prosecution.
However, in the case of naming of the Chief Minister’s son, Yathindra, who is an MLC, and bureaucrats such as IAS officers (as there are allegations in this regard in the political domain), then the investigation against those public servants may not be possible without separate sanctions under Section 17A of the PC Act by the competent authorities empowered in law.
Caveat filed
While the proceedings in the complaints presented by Mr. Krishna and Mr. Abraham are posted for further action before the Special Court in Bengaluru on August 20 and 21, respectively, Mr. Kumar has now filed a caveat before the High Court of Karnataka anticipating that Mr. Siddaramaiah is expected to exercise his legal option of filling a petition challenging the legality of the sanction granted by the Governor.
