Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah‘s petition challenging the approval given by Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot for conducting an investigation against him in the alleged illegalities in Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) allotting land to his wife Parvathi in an upscale area in Vijayanagar.
In his petition, the Karnataka Chief Minister had questioned the legality of the sanction granted by the state Governor Gehlot permitting a probe against him under Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prosecution under Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Surakha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
“The order of sanction for prosecution does not suffer from non-application of mind by the Governor. There is no fault in the Governor’s actions. The facts narrated need investigation. The petition is dismissed,’ the court said.
“I have seen the orders through the media. I am yet to go through the judgment of the High Court. After going through the judgment, I will react both legally & politically…I am not afraid of the conspiracy hatched by BJP & JD(S) as people are with our party, me and also our govt. Whatever futile exercise they made, to dislodge our govt, it is not possible for them…” Siddaramaiah said.
What is Section 17 A of Anti-corruption Law?
Section 17A was introduced on July 26, 2018 through an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act. The section aims to provide additional safeguards to public servants against frivolous or unwarranted investigations.
According to Section 17A of PCA 1988, No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval-
(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;
(c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving the arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:
Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.
Source link