New Delhi [India], August 31 (ANI): The office of the Karantaka Governor has told the high court in the State that sanction granted to prosecute Karnataka Chief Minister K Siddaramaiah in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam was done after “applicaton of mind.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said this while addressing Karnataka High Court in connection with Siddharamaiah’s plea. Karnataka Chief Minister had moved a plea challenging the sanction to prosecute him granted by Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot.
Solicitor General Mehta submitted before the bench of Justice Nagaprasanna that if a prima facie cognizable offence is made out, the Governor is bound to accord the sanction to prosecute.
The Solicitor General also submitted that there was elaborate application of mind on the part of the Governor.
After hearing arguments of Solicitor General Mehta, senior Advocate Maninder Singh and others for more than six hours, Justice Nagaoparasanna listed the matter for further arguments on September 2 at 2.30 pm.
During his arguments, Mehta further submitted that under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a preliminary inquiry is not contemplated, what is contemplating is only a prima facie case. If a preliminary inquiry takes place, the evidence would go. It is not necessary to initiate a preliminary inquiry in every case, as the facts of every case, are different, Mehta said .
Mehta further argued that sanction to prosecute is granted if prima facie a case is made out on the basis of material collected during the investigation.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta further submitted that to give sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister is an exclusive function of the Governor, who used his own discretion. If there is a prima facie case and the Governor decides not to give sanction to prosecute, then the power of democracy will be reducing, Mehta said.
It was further argued that any person can seek approval but the investigation officer cannot investigate without getting prior approval against a public servant.
The Governor signed the application, and the order was passed on August 16, Mehta informed the bench.
Mehta further submitted that the application of mind need not be reflected in the order, it will be reflected in the file. In this case, it can’t be said that the application of mind was not applied.
He further said that the chief secretary made a note of 45 pages mentioning the material against the petitioner after which it went to the Advocate General, who gave his opinion.
Thereafter, the matter was placed before the cabinet. The Cabinet is collectively responsible, and there was the collective non-application of mind, the Solicitor General said.
Mehta also said that the reply by the chief minister was a cut and paste from the note of the cabinet, the Advocate General and the Chief Secretary.
He also said that Bengaluru is the capital of IT and they could use Artificial Intelligence to rephrase to matter but they didn’t.
The SG said that there was an application of mind while according to the sanction by the Governor. Application of mind should be reflected in the file, not in the sanction order, he added.
He further said that it is an executive administrative order that need not to consider everything para to para and contention by contention. No hearing is required in administrative action, Mehta said adding that if there is a hearing, the person can destroy the evidence.
“What is to be seen by the competent authority whether a prima facie case is made out or not on the basis of material collected by the investigation agency during the investigation,” the Solicitor General said.
Mehta also referred to the reply by the Cheif Minister, which said he recused from the meeting. The deputy chief minister was there,.he had his representative in the cabinet meeting, Mehta said.
The Solicitor General also referred to the cases of the Supreme Court stating that the Governor should act on his own discretion. There is a likelihood of being biased in the decision of the cabinet if the allegations are against their chief minister, Mehta said.
The Governor sought a report from the chief secretary, who filed the same.
Thereafter, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh made his submissions. He submitted that the offence is against society, and then every person can seek sanction to prosecute.
He also submitted that there is material. He concluded his arguments.
In the post-lunch session, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi counsel for Siddaramaiah said that he needs time to analyse the response of the respondents.
In the post-lunch session, other counsels made their submissions. One of the counsels argued that the Governor would act on his own discretion and not the aid and advice of the council of ministers while granting sanction to prosecute the chief minister.
He further said that when the Chief Minister or a member of the cabinet faces prosecution, the Council of Ministers becomes disabled or disentitled. In this situation, the governor will act on his own discretion.
He also referred to Article 143 to show that council of ministers and chief minister are not bifurcated. The council is headed by the chief minister.
The counsel further argued that Section 17 (A) excludes notice to public servants. If notice is given there are chances of tampering with the evidence.
He further argued that the concept of notice does not arise at all as it would cause prejudice to the sanctity of the investigation. If notice is not given it can’t be said that Governor did not apply his mind.
The Governor at the same time wear two hats. On one hand, he is head of state, on the other he is an independent Constitutional functionary whose duty is to protect the constitution, the counsel added.
He concluded his arguements by saying that the writ petition does not warrant any interference by the bench.
Another counsel submitted that non-existent land was subjected to sale deed, conversion, to be gifted. This non-existent land was gifted to the wife of the chief minister a long ago by Mallikarjuna Swamy. Now she claims compensation for this land.
Earlier, a complaint was filed by social activist Snehamayi Krishna against the Karnataka CM and nine others for allegedly forging documents to claim compensation from the Mysuru Urban Development Authority. (ANI)
Disclaimer: This story is auto-generated from a syndicated feed of ANI; only the image & headline may have been reworked by News Services Division of World News Network Inc Ltd and Palghar News and Pune News and World News
HINDI, MARATHI, GUJARATI, TAMIL, TELUGU, BENGALI, KANNADA, ORIYA, PUNJABI, URDU, MALAYALAM
For more details and packages
