The Karnataka High Court has reserved its order on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's petition challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's approval for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case. The court extended its interim order to halt the special court proceedings until the petition's disposal.
Hearing concludes, orders reserved
The Karnataka High Court concluded its hearing on CM Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the Governor's sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the MUDA case. The court, after hearing arguments from both sides, reserved its decision and extended the existing interim order. The special court for people's representatives has been directed to defer proceedings until the High Court's ruling.
Governor's sanction challenged
Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot granted prosecution sanction against Siddaramaiah on August 16, following petitions by advocate activists under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Siddaramaiah's legal team argued that the Governor’s sanction was issued without due consideration of statutory mandates and contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers, which, under Article 163 of the Constitution, is binding on the Governor.
Arguments from Siddaramaiah’s counsel
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the CM, criticised the Governor's decision as lacking justification, claiming it was based solely on the assertion of independence from the Cabinet’s advice. Singhvi argued that the Governor had not provided specific reasoning for his decision and questioned the basis of allegations against Siddaramaiah in a 23-year-old case. He called the case an example of “cherry-picking” and claimed the prosecution was hastily pushed forward, unlike other pending cases.
Court questions on cabinet's role
During the hearing, the court acknowledged the concept of “subconscious bias” and questioned whether any Cabinet would permit prosecution against its leader. Singhvi countered that the Governor's order failed to offer adequate reasoning and was a case of “presumptive bias.
Also read | Karnataka communal clash: 52 arrested after stones pelted at Ganpati procession in Mandya | VIDEO
