Know why Karnataka HC ruled no bias by Guv against CM Siddaramaiah in MUDA case sanction

By Sanjeev Kumar Patro

Bhubaneswar: The Karnataka High Court today upheld the decision of the State Governor granting sanction against CM Siddaramaiah in an alleged case of corruption in Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA).  

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has challenged the sanction order of Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot in the High Court on August 19, two days after the Guv’s nod. Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna on Tuesday delivered his verdict, after hearing the counsels of all sides and reserving the judgment on September 12.

In his challenging petition, CM Siddaramaiah had raised the following objections.

• Governor cannot act on his discretion; he should abide by Cabinet’s decision.
• Lack of application of mind by the Governor
• Governor has been bias to Siddaramaiah
• Approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PCA) Act is not legal.
• Section 17A of the Act requires only a Police Officer to seek approval from the Competent Authority, not a private person.
• Governor acted in hottest haste while issuing a show cause notice on the same day of receipt of the petition.
• Sanction cannot be granted under Section 218 of BNSS

KARNATAKA HC DISMISSED ALL CONTENTIONS BUT ONE

In his judgment order, Justice Nagaprasanna dismissed the contentions made by petitioner CM Siddaramaiah with the following conclusions

• In 2016, Parliament Select Committee had recommended that under section 17 (A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), sanction for prosecution against a public servant should be obtained from a competent authority.
• The petitioner is a public servant and the allegations against him want to be investigated into. 
• If investigation has to ensue, it must pass through the gates of 17A. Therefore, an approval under Section 17A from the hands of the Competent Authority is imperative, as it is the mandate of the statute. 
• Karnataka HC dismissed the sanction granted by Guv under section 218 of BNSS, because, the investigation to the case has not yet started, therefore no sanction can be granted under this section.

ONLY POLICE CAN SEEK SANCTION, NO PRIVATE PERSON?

The judgment rejected this plea of the petitioner CM Siddramaiah. It said the following.

• In a complaint so registered under Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C. against a public servant or even a complaint to the higher ups under Section 154(3) are taken or acted upon, it is only those officers will have to seek approval under Section 17A for commencement of enquiry (questioning), inquiry (investigation) or investigation (conduct searches).
• Any private individual can approach concerned authorities to register complaint under Sect 154 (1) or 154 (3).
• When nothing happens, the private individual can approach the Judicial Magistrate Section 200 of CrPC or Section 223 of BNSS.
• In the present case, police is nowhere in the picture. The private individual has moved to court and it is the duty of the individual to get the approval from a Competent Authority. before the matter is referred under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. or Section 175 of the BNSS.
• It is for this reason the complainant would approach the Competent Authority, in the case at hand, the Governor seeking approval under Section 17A of the Act so that the private complaint would be referred to investigation.

GOVERNOR SHOULD FOLLOW CABINET ADVICE

• The High Court relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex court that said the following.
• The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court considered  this very issue and holds that normally the Governor is required to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, but if it is a matter of sanction to prosecute, it may carve out an exception whilst considering the grant of prosecution of Chief Minister or a Minister
• As a matter of propriety the Governor may have to act on his own discretion.

GOVERNOR BIAS AGAINST SIDDARAMAIAH

The court dismissed this contention with following observations.

• Bias has different hues and forms. They are depicted in various ways. 
• Unconscious bias and apparent bias are two facets of bias. 
• Apparent bias is judged upon what a common citizen would think of a particular action.
• In this case, the submission of the petitioner is that the Governor should not have declined to accept the Cabinet decision or the resolution of the Council of Ministers as the petitioner did not participate in the deliberations, but nominated the Deputy Chief Minister, to preside over the said meeting. 
• The court said it need not bear scientific accumen to prima facie hold that the Council of Ministers appointed on advice of Chief Minister would go against CM and pass a resolution permitting grant of approval by the Governor for prosecution.
• Therefore, non-acceptance of Cabinet decision should be considered as bias is not valid.
• Therefore, I find no fault in the discretion exercised by the Governor, on the foundation of law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT’s case.

WHY COURT SAID THIS WUD TURN LAW TOPSY TURVY?

• The court recalled Apex Court’s ruling that said “natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine nor a judicial cure-all. It cannot be stretched to an unnatural extent.
• Therefore, the Justice Nagaprasanna said if submission of petitioner is accepted, it would undoubtedly be stretching natural justice to an unnatural extent, as prior to registration of the crime, every accused will have to be heard.
• Likewise, prior to approval being granted, the person against whom approval is sought will have to be heard. This is turning the law topsy-turvy.