Bengaluru, Sep 12 (Reporter) The Karnataka High Court on Thursday reserved its order on a petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, who challenged the sanction granted by Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot to prosecute him in an alleged land scam involving the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The hearing featured sharp exchanges and critical observations, particularly regarding the role of the Council of Ministers and the Governor’s authority. Justice M Nagaprasanna’s remarks highlighted the core issue of the case: the procedural propriety of the Governor’s decision to grant sanction without consulting the Council of Ministers. Siddaramaiah’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, argued that this omission violated procedural norms, as the Governor is obliged to consider the advice of the Council before making such decisions. Justice Nagaprasanna, however, raised concerns about the impartiality of the Council of Ministers in this situation, given Siddaramaiah’s position as Chief Minister. “Which Council of Ministers will tell the Governor that he should give sanction against their CM?” he asked, casting doubt on the integrity of the Council’s advice. Singhvi maintained that the Governor’s decision was flawed because he disregarded the mandatory step of acting on the Council’s recommendation, which was against granting the sanction. Singhvi also sought to undermine the credibility of the complainants, alleging that one of them, TJ Abraham, had a criminal record, including charges of criminal intimidation. In response, Justice Nagaprasanna noted that whistleblowers are often subject to such allegations, indicating that the court would not dismiss the complaint solely on the basis of the complainant’s background. The case centres on a disputed land deal involving Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, who allegedly received over three acres of land as a gift from her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy. The land, initially acquired and later de-notified, was purchased by Swamy and then developed by MUDA, despite remaining privately owned. Parvathi is accused of receiving inflated compensation, including 14 alternate plots under MUDA’s 50:50 scheme, which were allegedly much more valuable than the original land. Defending the Governor’s decision, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Gehlot had independently reviewed prima facie evidence that warranted prosecution. Mehta asserted that the Governor did not simply rely on the Council’s advice, which he characterised as a mere reiteration of the State’s position without proper evaluation. As the court reserved its decision, the case underscored the legal complexities and potential conflicts of interest that arise when high-profile political figures are involved. The outcome is expected to have significant implications for the balance of power between the Governor and the Council of Ministers, particularly in matters involving prosecution sanctions against sitting government officials. This case raises intricate questions about procedural propriety, the Governor’s discretion, and the potential influence of political considerations in high-stakes legal decisions, making it a closely watched development in Karnataka’s political and legal circles...////...