Live
- They always want me to win, and now I feel lucky to have been offered a story like ‘Zebra’: Satyadev Kancharana
- ‘Democracy first, humanity first’: PM Modi in Guyana's parliament on two countries' similarities
- PKL Season 11: Telugu Titans register third straight win to top standings
- Is Pollution Contributing to Your COPD?
- NASA Unveils Underwater Robots for Exploring Jupiter's Moons
- Additional Central forces arrive in violence-hit Manipur
- AR Rahman and Saira Banu’s Divorce: Legal Insights into Common Issues in Bollywood Marriages
- 82.7 pc work completed in HPCL Rajasthan Refinery area: official
- Curfew relaxation extended in 5 Manipur districts on Friday
- Tab scam prompts Bengal govt to adopt caution over fund disbursement
MUDA case: HC takes up CM’s petition for hearing
The High Court on Thursday took up the hearing of a writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s decision to grant consent for his prosecution in the alleged MUDA scam.
Bengaluru: The High Court on Thursday took up the hearing of a writ petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s decision to grant consent for his prosecution in the alleged MUDA scam.
Meanwhile, Siddaramaiah, who had earlier cancelled his engagements for the court hearing, was seen on city rounds in Bengaluru as the court began hearing the case.
The bench, headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, asked the counsels to complete their arguments and counterarguments by the end of the day. Appearing for Siddaramaiah, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, resuming his argument, submitted that the Governor is not elected by the people and is appointed. In this context, the Governor has more accountability.
The Governor gave consent for prosecution in a 23-year-old case, and this action appears to be more politically motivated than imposing the President’s rule, he added.
As the bench questioned Singhvi, noting that the Governor does not need to adhere to the decision of the Cabinet and it is left to his discretion, he argued that the Governor cannot reject the Cabinet’s advice without providing reasons.
“No reasons were specified, and without them, the Cabinet’s decision was simply dismissed as wrongful. In his five to six-page order, the Governor did not provide any substantial explanation and merely stated that he would not comply with the Cabinet’s advice, “ he said, adding that that the Governor’s order lacked discretion and that the action against the Chief Minister was taken in haste.
Singhvi further stated that Siddaramaiah had not signed any files related to the MUDA case. “Several officers have worked on and moved away from the case since it came to light. Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has been a legislator since 1984, and every matter has two dimensions. In the last 23 years, 23 officers in MUDA might have been involved in the case. So why is only CM Siddaramaiah being targeted? It is because attempts are being made to destabilise the Congress government,” he asked. Singhvi also argued that the Governor should have explained in his order how he had exercised his discretion and accused him of acting at the behest of invisible hands. He pointed out that there is not a single reason mentioned by the Governor for his decision.
“I am not insisting on presenting 1,000 pages,” Singhvi stated, “but a show-cause notice was issued within 24 hours based on a complaint by a private individual”.
He added that the Governor should use his discretion rarely. The opinion of the investigating officer should be considered, and only then should a decision be made.
More reasons are needed for not considering the Cabinet’s decision, he said, submitting that Dr. B.R. Ambedkar clearly defined the role of the Governor in this regard.
While the CM is represented by Singhvi, the Governor’s office is represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. Advocate General K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, presenting his arguments for CM Siddaramaiah submitted to the court that the Governor cannot act as an investigator. Singhvi has also argued that the Governor did not follow the principles of natural justice while granting permission for a probe against the Chief Minister.
Defending the Governor, SG Mehta submitted that the decision was made lawfully and that all due process was followed.
Lawyer Lakshmi Iyengar, appearing for petitioner Snehamayi Krishna, argued that there was evidence of Siddaramaiah’s role in the MUDA case. “CM Siddaramaiah’s wife does not have any source of income. The property of the wife in this case has to be considered belonging to the husband,” she maintained.
Meanwhile, Siddaramaiah inspected BDA flyover construction work near Hebbal, asphalt work on the service road near Kariyammana Agrahara on the Outer Ring Road asphalt work near Hennur Junction, and reviewed metro construction plans near KR Puram Railway Station and held discussion with officials. Subsequently, he travelled to Vidhana Soudha via the metro. However, the Chief Minister had cancelled the press meet organised at his home office ‘Krishna’ after the city rounds and maintained that he would release a press statement.
