Editor's Pick | Karnataka HC upholds nod for probe against CM

In a major setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the permission granted by the Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to conduct an investigation against him on the allegation of illegalities in the allotment of 14 sites worth ₹56 crore to his wife Parvathi by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Also, the court gave the green signal for ordering a probe by vacating its interim order granted on August 19 directing a special court in Bengaluru to defer the decision on the complaints against Mr. Siddaramaiah. It also rejected a plea to stay Tuesday’s verdict to enable Mr. Siddaramaiah to appeal against it. Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the verdict while dismissing Mr. Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the legality of the Governor’s August 16 order granting approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988. Referring to the allegations, the High Court said that it “undoubtedly requires an investigation into the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside, but the wife of Mr. Siddaramaiah.” Here is how the Chief Minister explained allotment of 14 alternative sites by MUDA to his wife. On the Governor’s power, the court said the Governor, in normal circumstances, had to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as per Article 163 of the Constitution, “but can take independent decision in exceptional circumstances, and the present case is one such exception...” The court said that “no fault can be found in the action of the Governor exercising independent discretion.” Hours after the High Court order, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said he had “no hesitation in facing any investigation”, and would consult with legal experts to understand whether such an investigation was permissible under the law. “After discussions with legal experts, I will decide on the further course of action,” he said at a press conference flanked by Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar and other Cabinet colleagues. Mr. Siddaramaiah reiterated that he had committed no mistake and ruled out his resignation from the post. The Opposition stepped up its attack on the chief minister, seeking his resignation. “It is now clear that prima facie a case has been made out against the Chief Minister. Mr. Siddaramaiah should uphold the dignity of his post by immediately resigning on moral grounds,” BJP State president B.Y. Vijayendra said. Rejecting Mr. Siddaramaiah’s contention that the approval for investigation has to be taken only by the police officer and not by any private individuals, the court said, “Section 17A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against a public servant for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act.” The court said that “it is the duty of the complainant to seek such approval” in case of a private complaint lodged before the competent courts. “The Gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from want of application of mind,” the High Court said, rejecting Mr. Siddaramaiah’s claim that the Governor had not applied his mind in granting permission for investigation. The court also made it clear that grant of an opportunity of hearing or issuing a show-cause notice prior to grant of approval for investigation under Section 17A is not mandatory. However, if the competent authority [Governor in this case] chooses to do so, it is open to it, the judge said. It was argued on behalf of Mr. Siddaramaiah that the Governor had issued notice to him only on the complaint filed by Abraham T.J., and not on the two other complaints, filed by Snehamayi Krishna and Pradeep Kumar S.P. The court also clarified that the Governor’s order is read to be restrictive to an approval for investigation under Section 17A and not an order granting sanction for prosecution under Section 218 of the BNSS as it was clarified on behalf of the Governor that the order has to be contained only for investigation under Section 17A. In an editorial when the Governor had granted approval to a private complainant to open an investigation against the Chief Minister, The Hindu had noted that it raises politico-legal questions, especially at a time when there there is increasing conflict between the two offices, but that the allegations would require a thorough investigation. “Corruption charges need credible probe, not processes tainted by politics,” it noted. The Hindu’s Editorials Visit wrap-up: On PM Modi’s U.S. visit, announcements It is an offence: On Supreme Court clarification on online content on child sex abuse The Hindu’s Daily Quiz Which Indian official did not accompany PM Modi’s recent trip to the U.S.? Ajit Doval Pankaj Saran Vikram Misri Vinay Mohan Kwatra To know the answer and to play the full quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 25 September 2024 [The Hindu logo] [EP Logo] Editor's Pick 25 September 2024 In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [View in browser]( [More newsletters]( Karnataka HC upholds nod for probe against CM In a major setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, [the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the permission granted]( by the Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to conduct an investigation against him on the [allegation of illegalities]( in the allotment of 14 sites worth ₹56 crore to his wife Parvathi by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Also, the court gave the green signal for ordering a probe by vacating its interim order granted on August 19 directing a special court in Bengaluru to defer the decision on the complaints against Mr. Siddaramaiah. It also rejected a plea to stay Tuesday’s verdict to enable Mr. Siddaramaiah to appeal against it. Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the verdict while dismissing Mr. Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the legality of the Governor’s August 16 order granting approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988. [Referring to the allegations, the High Court said]( that it “undoubtedly requires an investigation into the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside, but the wife of Mr. Siddaramaiah.” [Here is how the Chief Minister explained allotment of 14 alternative sites by MUDA to his wife]( On the Governor’s power, the court said the Governor, in normal circumstances, had to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as per Article 163 of the Constitution, “but can take independent decision in exceptional circumstances, and the present case is one such exception...” The court said that “no fault can be found in the action of the Governor exercising independent discretion.” Hours after the High Court order, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said he had “no hesitation in facing any investigation”, and would consult with legal experts to understand whether such an investigation was permissible under the law. “After discussions with legal experts, I will decide on the further course of action,” he said at a press conference flanked by Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar and other Cabinet colleagues. Mr. [Siddaramaiah reiterated that he had committed no mistake]( and ruled out his resignation from the post. The Opposition stepped up its attack on the chief minister, seeking his resignation. “It is now clear that prima facie a case has been made out against the Chief Minister. Mr. Siddaramaiah should uphold the dignity of his post by immediately resigning on moral grounds,” BJP State president B.Y. Vijayendra said. Rejecting Mr. Siddaramaiah’s contention that the approval for investigation has to be taken only by the police officer and not by any private individuals, the court said, “Section 17A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against a public servant for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act.” The court said that “it is the duty of the complainant to seek such approval” in case of a private complaint lodged before the competent courts. “The Gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from want of application of mind,” the High Court said, rejecting Mr. Siddaramaiah’s claim that the Governor had not applied his mind in granting permission for investigation. The court also made it clear that grant of an opportunity of hearing or issuing a show-cause notice prior to grant of approval for investigation under Section 17A is not mandatory. However, if the competent authority [Governor in this case] chooses to do so, it is open to it, the judge said. It was argued on behalf of Mr. Siddaramaiah that the Governor had issued notice to him only on the complaint filed by Abraham T.J., and not on the two other complaints, filed by Snehamayi Krishna and Pradeep Kumar S.P. The court also clarified that the Governor’s order is read to be restrictive to an approval for investigation under Section 17A and not an order granting sanction for prosecution under Section 218 of the BNSS as it was clarified on behalf of the Governor that the order has to be contained only for investigation under Section 17A. In an editorial when the Governor had granted approval to a private complainant to open an investigation against the Chief Minister, [The Hindu had noted]( that it raises politico-legal questions, especially at a time when there there is increasing conflict between the two offices, but that the allegations would require a thorough investigation. “Corruption charges need credible probe, not processes tainted by politics,” it noted. The Hindu’s Editorials [Arrow][Visit wrap-up: On PM Modi’s U.S. visit, announcements]( [Arrow][It is an offence: On Supreme Court clarification on online content on child sex abuse]( The Hindu’s Daily Quiz Which Indian official did not accompany PM Modi’s recent trip to the U.S.? - Ajit Doval - Pankaj Saran - Vikram Misri - Vinay Mohan Kwatra To know the answer and to play the full quiz, [click here.]( Today’s Best Reads [[Kailash Gahlot takes charge, returns as Delhi transport minister] Kailash Gahlot takes charge, returns as Delhi transport minister]( [[Sri Lanka President Dissanayake picks MP and former academic Harini Amarasuriya as PM] Sri Lanka President Dissanayake picks MP and former academic Harini Amarasuriya as PM]( [[Delhi to host India-Germany hockey series in October] Delhi to host India-Germany hockey series in October]( [[Crime Branch weighs legal options after Kerala High Court rejects actor Siddique’s anticipatory bail plea] Crime Branch weighs legal options after Kerala High Court rejects actor Siddique’s anticipatory bail plea]( Copyright© 2024, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](