Political overtones
Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s decision to grant permission to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over alleged irregularities in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment case has brought forth, again, several constitutional questions that have been lingering in the public domain for quite a long time. The move has met fierce resistance from the Congress party, which has labelled it a politically motivated attack orchestrated by the opposition parties—Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S))—to undermine Siddaramaiah's leadership. It is a curious case of complex interplay between law and politics, and has reinforced the debate about the role of governors in the constitutional scheme of things.
At the heart of the issue lies the allegation that Siddaramaiah misused his position to secure alternative sites for his wife, Parvathi, in Mysuru's posh localities by manipulating documents. These allegations are part of a broader scandal involving the MUDA, which has been accused of gross irregularities in the allotment of residential sites under a 50:50 compensation scheme for land losers. The Chief Minister, supported by party members, has refuted these claims and vowed to fight the charges. Alleging gross misuse of power, the Indian National Congress has called for statewide protests, and decided to submit memoranda to President Draupadi Murmu expressing opposition to the ‘politically motivated’ move. The perennial debate surrounding the misuse of the gubernatorial office refuses to die down. To add insult to injury, the allegations around misuse of governors’ powers have grown more frequent—suggesting that the veil of constitutional decency to cover such misdemeanours is growing thinner. The framers of the Indian Constitution defined the process of appointment of governors in a manner that would tilt the scale in favour of unitarianism vis-à-vis federalism. Such an imbalance was deemed pertinent to ensure stability of the nation. Who would have thought that powers that be will stoop to such low in blatantly misusing the cautious imbalance to undermine the cardinal principle of federalism altogether. In recent years, most of the prominent opposition-ruled states have witnessed CM-governor confrontation for one reason or the other.
In the present case, the governor’s authority to issue sanction for chief minister’s prosecution might not be clearly supported by legal-judicial precedents. In granting the permission for prosecution, Gehlot cited the five-judge constitution bench ruling in the Maharashtra Special Police Establishment vs State of Madhya Pradesh case. Though the ruling prioritised governor’s discretion over state cabinet’s advice, the prosecution intended was that of ministers, and not the chief minister. The Court emphasized that the Governor must act independently when there is overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, arguing that democracy itself could be at stake if high-functionaries were shielded from prosecution. However, the Karnataka High Court, in 2015, highlighted the need for “great care, caution and proper application” when the complaint is of private nature—as is the case in the sanction for Siddaramaiah’s prosecution. The caveat is that the governor claims to have independently investigated the private complaints and supporting documents.
Under such a tricky circumstance, one aspect merits consideration. The accusations against Siddaramaiah are very tangled up and ambiguous. The state government appears to have convincingly explained the actions against which charges are levelled. It has also designated a one-man judicial commission headed by retired judge of Karnataka High Court PN Desai to probe into the alleged irregularities and submit its report in six months. The root question is: can and should the serving chief minister of a state be prosecuted on the basis of allegations that are not supported by credible evidence, but have the backing of the governor’s discretion? If the answer is yes, the outcome could be disastrous for India’s federal structure. The appropriate protocol to follow would be to allow the government-appointed committee to come out with its report, and then, taking it as credible evidence, guide further actions. From Delhi to West Bengal and elsewhere—the adversarial approach of governors towards state governments is more than evident. The events in Karnataka will have to be seen against this backdrop, because nothing operates in vacuum!
