Bengaluru: With the ball now in the Governor’s court vis-a-vis the petition seeking sanction for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s prosecution in connection with the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment ‘scam’, all eyes are on the Raj Bhavan, as to what decision Thaawarchand Gehlot takes.
Based on a petition filed by advocate-activist T J Abraham, the Governor had issued “show-cause notice” on July 26 directing the Chief Minister to submit his reply to the allegations against him within seven days, as to why permission for prosecution should not be granted against him.
The Karnataka government on August 1 “strongly advised” him to withdraw his “show-cause notice” , and alleged “gross misuse of the Constitutional Office” of the Governor.
The controversy began when advocate-activist T J Abraham filed a petition prompting the Governor to issue a “show-cause notice” to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on July 26. In this notice, the Governor directed the Chief Minister to respond to the allegations within seven days, explaining why permission for his prosecution should not be granted. This action has sparked a heated political debate and has put significant pressure on the Governor’s office.
In response, the Karnataka government strongly opposed the Governor’s notice. On August 1, the state government “strongly advised” Governor Gehlot to withdraw the “show-cause notice,” accusing him of “gross misuse of the Constitutional Office.” This clash highlights the deepening rift between the state government and the Raj Bhavan.
The issue was a major topic of discussion during a recent meeting of the council of ministers, which lasted five hours. Following this meeting, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, accompanied by seven cabinet colleagues, addressed the media. Shivakumar criticized the Governor’s actions, alleging that he had acted with undue haste and circumvented procedural requirements. He pointed out that T J Abraham, the petitioner, has a history of criminal behavior, including charges of blackmail and extortion. According to Shivakumar, this fact should have been taken into consideration before issuing the show-cause notice.
The council of ministers voiced strong opposition to the Governor’s notice, urging him to withdraw it and reject Abraham’s application for sanction. They argued that the notice was an attempt to destabilize a lawfully elected majority government in Karnataka for political reasons. Shivakumar expressed hope that the Governor would withdraw the notice, thereby upholding the dignity of his office despite any external pressures.
The Governor’s notice cited sections 17(A) and 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as the legal basis for processing Abraham’s request. This legal framework underscores the seriousness of the allegations and the formal process required to address them.
As the situation unfolds, all eyes remain on Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot and the Raj Bhavan. The Governor’s decision will have significant political implications and could impact the stability of the current government in Karnataka. The case exemplifies the complex interplay between constitutional offices and elected governments, highlighting the delicate balance of power and the potential for conflict within India’s political system.
