From Our Special Correspondent
Daijiworld Media Network
Bengaluru, Aug 19: Embattled Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Monday secured a temporary relief from the Karnataka High Court, which has directed the court handling the cases in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) against legislators and members of parliament, not to precipitate matters by taking any further action till next date of hearing on August 29.
The PMLA Court, which has heard the complaints from Social Activist T J Abraham, Pradeep Kumar and Snehamayi Krishna against Siddaramaiah on the alleged irregularities in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) decision of allotting 14 sites to the Chief Minister’s wife Parvathi, was scheduled to pronounce its orders on August 20.
![](https://daijiworld.ap-south-1.linodeobjects.com/Linode/images3/cm_200524_1.jpg)
The State High Court’s interim order followed the filing of a writ petition in the morning by the Chief Minister through his counsel against the State Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot sanctioning prosecution in the complaints from the three social activists in the MUDA scam.
Siddaramaiah’s senior counsel Abishek Manu Singhvi, who moved the High Court against the Governor’s grant of permission to prosecute him, sought interim relief on the grounds that the decision was "illegal and without authority of law" and that allowing his prosecution posed "a grave and imminent risk of irreparable harm (to his) reputation" as well as "disrupt governance... and potentially result in political destabilisation".
The Supreme Court advocate pointed out that the matter is heard by the High Court and that pleadings are to be completed, the High Court ordered that till the next date of hearing the concerned court (the trial court) should defer its proceedings..."
The High Court noted that documents submitted by the petitioner (the Chief Minister) had "referred to several points of order... to prima facie demonstrate that the order (granting sanction to prosecute) bears non-application of mind (by the Governor)” and the Chief Minister's submission - that the Governor had sanctioned prosecution of the former at "breakneck" speed following filing of a complaint on July 26.
Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi had urged the court to direct "no precipitate action" and claimed the sanction granted by the Governor is "part of a concerted effort to destabilise the duly elected government of Karnataka..."
He argued that the Governor had "picked this complaint (filed by activist TJ Abraham) ... out of 12 to 15 still pending, without single reason". He further argued that conditions to be met for application of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, under which the Chief Minister has been charged, were missing.
The High Court was apprised of the fact that “other errors that betrayed the order was passed "without application of mind", including the show-cause notice sent to Siddaramaiah referring to one complaint and the Governor's sanction to prosecute referring to "other complaints".
"Mr Abraham's complaint is received and, on the same day, the Governor issues the show-cause notice... legal malice (against Chief Minister) has to be inferred. Somebody goes to a 'friendly governor', gives a complaint, and he issues notice..." Singhvi argued.
He also referred to the State Cabinet's "detailed, legal, and reasoned order" on this topic, and continued, "What did he decide? Order is silent on reasons why sanction should be granted."
The Governor had said that his order was necessary to conduct a "neutral, objective, and non-partisan investigation", adding he is prima facie "satisfied" the alleged infractions were, in fact, committed.
The alleged MUDA scam focuses on the value of land allotted to the Chief Minister's wife, Parvathi, in an upmarket area of Mysuru as compensation for land elsewhere taken for infra development.
Siddaramaiah had claimed that the land was gifted by his wife's brother in 1998. However, another activist Snehmayi Krishna alleged the brother had procured it illegally and registered it using forged documents with help from government officials. The land was shown to have been bought in 1998.