Karnataka High Court Defers Hearing on Siddaramaiah's Challenge To Governor's Sanction For Land Allocation Case

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's case against Governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot's approval of his wife's alleged illegal land allocations by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) was deferred by the Karnataka High Court on Thursday to be heard on Saturday.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Siddaramaiah's Senior Counsel, wrapped up his arguments, and the court adjourned the case. Singhvi maintained that the governor's sanction was granted without due process because one of the main complainants had earlier stated that the filing of a case did not require the governor's sanction.

According to him, the governor's "Non- application of mind", is the reason the consent should be cancelled. A special court for people's representatives, which was scheduled to hear allegations against him in the case, was ordered to postpone its proceedings until the next hearing date by an interim order issued by the court on August 19. I've heard the wise senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who has finished his current submission and has reserved the right to make further, The matter is scheduled to be taken up on August 31st, and Tushar Mehta, the learned solicitor general of India who represented the Governor, has stated that he will finish his submissions on that date once the respondents have done theirs. M Nagaprasanna, the Judge, stated, "List the matter on Saturday at 10:30 am."

He declared, "The interim order granted on August 19 shall continue until the next hearing date". Siddaramaiah filed a lawsuit in the High Court on August 19 to contest the validity of the governor's decree. The governor's order from August 17th, which authorised an investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sanctioned prosecution under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, was challenged in the petition. In his petition, Siddaramaiah claimed that the sanction had been given without due process, in violation of both the law and the constitution.

Furthermore, Article 163 of the Indian Constitution was cited as evidence that the sanction ignored the Council of Ministers' required advice. Furthermore, the appeal claimed that the order was a product of a calculated effort to destabilise the Karnataka administration for political ends and that it was influenced by outside forces.

On Thursday, the M Nagaprasanna-led division bench announced that it will continue to hear arguments from all sides on Saturday. It is anticipated that the governor and the three private complainants would make their cases, followed by Singhvi's last reply. Singhvi argued that the governor's order was unlawful and requested both temporary relief and its revocation during the hearing on Thursday.

The Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), he claimed, states that an investigation of a public servant "Requires sanction only when sought by a police officer or investigative agency." He brought up the fact that one of the complainants had said that at this point, no such sanction was necessary. Singhvi argued that the governor had failed to conduct a thorough assessment of the circumstances by deciding to provide approval when it
wasn't required. Singhvi brought out the governor's inconsistent strategy as well.

According to him, Siddaramaiah's case was handled unusually quickly, but opposition leaders like HD Kumaraswamy, Shashikala Jolle, and Murugesh Nirani were given punishments later. He contended that the governor made a mistake in approving the action without waiting for a report from an officer or investigative body. During the hearing, Singhvi pointed out that neither the governor nor Pradeep Kumar, one of the petitioners, had given the court their objections. Additionally, he took issue with petitioner TJ Abraham's contradictory statements, arguing that the governor's approval was not required at first.
"The governor ought to levy a fine and revoke the approval of his petition," Singhvi Contended.

Author:
Aarya Kadam (News Writer) is a final-year BBA student and a creative writer with a passion for current affairs and legal judgments.