Why in news
Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot sanctioned an investigation and prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over alleged corruption in land allotment to his wife by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
The sanction was based on petitions by Bengaluru-based social activists
Sanction granted under
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for investigation).
Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for prosecution).
The Cabinet termed the decision "illegal, unconstitutional, and against the spirit of democracy and federalism" and resolved to fight the case legally
The Governor cited a 2004 Supreme Court ruling stating that a lack of discretion by Governors could lead to a breakdown of the rule of law.
He highlighted the need for a neutral, objective, and non-partisan investigation due to the conflicting versions of the facts.
Law Governing Governor's Sanction:
The law on a Governor granting sanction for prosecuting a serving Chief Minister (CM) involves both statutory provisions and court judgments.
The issue of Karnataka Governor sanctioning the prosecution of CM for alleged irregularities is an example of the complex mix of law and politics.
Governor's Discretion vs. Ministerial Advice:
The question of whether a Governor can grant sanction to prosecute a CM using their own discretion, rather than following the advice of the Council of Ministers, has been addressed in a few cases.
In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Governor’s discretion in the prosecution of Maharashtra CM A.R. Antulay.
The 2004 Supreme Court ruling in the Maharashtra Special Police Establishment vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case upheld the Governor’s discretion to grant sanction to prosecute ministers when the Cabinet refused.
The complainants and political parties backing Siddaramaiah’s prosecution may rely on the 2004 Supreme Court ruling that gave the Governor a veto over the Council of Ministers if material evidence was ignored.
COMMENTS