Politico-legal cases have a momentum of their own, depending on who is being prosecuted and who facilitates forward movement on their procedural aspects. A Special Court in Bengaluru has acted swiftly to direct the State’s Lokayukta police to investigate a complaint of corruption against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. The step comes in the wake of the Karnataka High Court lifting the bar on the Special Court dealing with private complaints on the issue, while upholding Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s grant of permission to initiate an investigation into allegations against the CM. The charges arise from benefits worth ₹56 crore that his family allegedly derived from the allotment of 14 compensatory sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to his wife, Ms. Parvathi, who was one of those whose land had been acquired and developed for a residential layout. The High Court rejected Mr. Siddaramaiah’s stand that Mr. Gehlot had acted in undue haste in issuing a show-cause notice on the very day the complaint was received and had shown non-application of mind while approving the beginning of a probe. It further rejected the argument that the Governor should follow the advice of the Council of Ministers in this. Also rejected was the contention that the prior approval requirement under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for opening a probe can only pertain to a police officer and not any private complainant.
The High Court verdict narrates the facts behind the way in which Ms. Parvathi came to possess the land through a gift-deed from her brother, who had purchased the land from a person long after its acquisition had been notified and the compensation amount deposited in court. It justifies the Governor acting on his own discretion on the ground that the Council of Ministers was biased towards the CM and its advice to the Governor to reject the request for sanction was rightly ignored. Its ruling on Section 17A is rooted in an earlier Karnataka High Court decision that a private complainant has to produce the sanctioning authority’s approval for the jurisdiction court to take cognisance of his complaint of corruption against a public servant. This aspect may be taken up on appeal, as also the court’s rejection of Mr. Siddaramaiah’s key contention that he had made no decision or recommendation in this MUDA matter to justify the court allowing an investigation against him. The question whether the Governor was free from bias is also likely to arise. Beyond fact and law, the central question in this case is whether this is a genuine anti-corruption move or an instance of a Governor using the statutory power to allow investigation or prosecution to undermine a regime.
Published - September 27, 2024 12:20 am IST
