Bengaluru, Aug 31 (UNI) Solicitor General Tushar Mehta on Saturday defended Karnataka Governor Thawaarchand Gehlot’s decision to sanction the prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the alleged MUDA scam and said that the Governor’s actions were ‘constitutionally justified’ and not beholden to the state cabinet’s advice.
Representing the Governor in the High Court, Mehta insisted that the Governor has the authority to act independently when assessing whether a prima facie case exists, particularly in cases of alleged corruption involving the misuse of office.
“The Governor is not bound by the Cabinet’s recommendations,” Mehta emphasized, asserting that the sanction was accorded due to serious allegations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which warranted the investigation.
His submissions highlighted the independence of the Governor’s constitutional powers, framing the sanction as a necessary check on executive overreach.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, during the hearing, engaged critically with Mehta’s arguments, questioning how government land could be reclassified as agricultural land, a central issue in the case involving alleged irregular land allocations by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to Siddaramaiah’s wife.
Mehta didn’t hold back in critiquing the state cabinet’s stance, accusing it of rubber-stamping legal opinions without independent scrutiny. He labeled this as a “collective non-application of mind,” taking a swipe at the irony of such behavior in Bengaluru, the country’s tech hub, and remarking that even artificial intelligence could have been employed to rephrase the verbatim legal notes presented.
The hearing is part of Siddaramaiah’s challenge against the Governor’s sanction, which he claims was improperly granted for alleged offences predating the relevant legal framework.
Senior Advocate Prof Ravivarma Kumar, arguing for Siddaramaiah, pointed out the post-facto application of laws, questioning the validity of the prosecution itself. Justice Nagaprasanna acknowledged these concerns but reiterated the need to focus on the role of the Chief Minister in the alleged misuse of office.
Maninder Singh, representing the complainant, backed Mehta’s defence, detailing the murky land transactions, including the reallocation of government land under suspicious terms. He suggested that these actions warranted independent scrutiny, emphasizing that the sanction was not merely procedural but necessary for accountability.
Justice Nagaprasanna’s observations pointed to a deeper judicial inquiry into the boundaries of gubernatorial powers and executive accountability, highlighting that the court would not shy away from examining the constitutional responsibilities at play. “The Governor’s role cannot be seen in isolation, nor can the involvement of key state figures be dismissed,” the judge noted, signaling a complex evaluation of the case’s legal and administrative dimensions.
The next hearing will be Monday at 2:30 PM, with the HC expected to dive deeper into the legality of the Governor’s decision.
