The decision of Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to grant approval to a private complainant to open an investigation and prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on corruption charges raises familiar politico-legal questions. Foremost is the constitutional question whether a Governor can use his role as a sanctioning authority for prosecution against a serving Chief Minister in a manner contrary to the advice of the Council of Ministers. And in political terms, one may ask whether the Governor’s action against a Chief Minister is desirable in a time of increasing conflict between the two offices. In his writ petition challenging the order, Mr. Siddaramaiah has sought to highlight that the Governor was bound to abide by the advice given to him — to refuse sanction in this case. Some judicial precedents say a Governor may arrive at an independent conclusion if the Council demonstrates bias or fails to consider relevant material. However, political realities would suggest the possibility of Governors being selective in pursuing this course of action. Amidst the Opposition’s demands for Mr. Siddaramaiah’s resignation, the Karnataka High Court has asked the trial court to defer any precipitate action until it hears his challenge to the Governor’s order. The allotment of sites by the Mysore Urban Development Authority to landowners who had lost their land in the course of acquisition may or may not involve corruption, and allegations in this regard will require a thorough investigation.
The State government believes that the judicial inquiry it has ordered is enough for now, a step the Governor thinks is inadequate. The Chief Minister’s wife was given 38,284 square feet of land in lieu of an extent of 1,48,104 sq.ft she had lost. However, whether it amounts to any illegality would depend on whether Mr. Siddaramaiah had anything to do with the decision. He vehemently denies being involved in any way and has repeatedly said that the sites were sanctioned when the BJP was in power in the State. Private complainants have obtained sanction for prosecution of public servants in the past, but whether it can be given to them after the Prevention of Corruption Act was amended in 2018 has to be considered. Section 17A was introduced then as a filtering mechanism to deter vexatious complaints. It bars police officers from opening a probe without approval from the appropriate authority, making it reasonable to suggest that private parties cannot be given such approval. Public discourse on corruption in the last few decades has hovered between a hankering for punishing political leaders involved in it and deep suspicion over the motives of regimes and agencies that seek to prosecute them. Any criminal process will have to be credible and independent, but contemporary events, politically tainted as they are, contain little evidence of independence or credibility.