The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the sanction granted by Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority scam, reported Live Law.

The alleged scam pertains to the allotment of 14 high-value housing sites in Mysuru’s Vijaynagar area to Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, in 2021 by the Mysore Urban Development Authority under a state government scheme.

This was allegedly done in exchange for 3.16 acres of land that Parvathi owned in another part of the city. The land was allegedly illegally acquired from Dalit families.

“The complainants were justified in pursuing the complaint and seeking approval at the hands of the governor,” said a single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing Siddaramaiah’s petition on Tuesday, according to Bar and Bench.

The court also noted that it was the duty of the complainant to seek approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and that the governor could make an independent decision.

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act deals with the inquiry or investigation of offences related to recommendations made or decisions taken by a public servant while performing their official functions or duties.

“The facts narrated in the petition need investigation,” Nagaprasanna said.

On August 19, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court challenging Gehlot’s decision to grant sanction to prosecute him for the alleged corruption. The sanction was given on July 26 following private complaints by activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna and Pradeep Kumar SP.

After the chief minister filed his petition, the High Court directed a trial court not to take any action against the chief minister while the matter was being heard.

In his petition, Siddaramaiah contended that the governor’s decision was part of a concerted effort to destabilise the Congress government in Karnataka.

At the earlier proceedings, lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the chief minister, had told the High Court that the governor had issued sanction in a short two-page order without considering the merits of the case.

He argued that the order for the grant of prosecution was issued without the application of the mind and that it violated the constitutional principle of governors acting on the advice of the council of ministers.

Singhvi, on the application of the Prevention of Corruption Act, also said that the offence allegedly took place sometime in 2005. Section 17A, therefore, could not be applied “retrospectively” in 2010, according to Live Law.

On Tuesday, the court said that the governor “under normal circumstances has to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers as under Article 163 of the Constitution”, Bar and Bench reported.

Article 163 pertains to the council of ministers’ role in advising and assisting the governor.

However, the bench said that the governor can take independent decisions in exceptional circumstances. “The present case projects one such exception,” Nagaprasanna said. “No fault can be found with the governor exercising independent discretion to pass the impugned order.”

The court also noted that “the beneficiary of all these actions is not anybody outside, but is the family of the petitioner”.