TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Governor's Section 17A approval for investigating public servant upheld despite procedural challenges</h1> <h3>Shri Siddaramaiah Versus The State of Karnataka Represented By Its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha; The Special Secretary To His Excellency; Mr. Abraham T.J. ; Sri Snehamayi Krishna; Pradeepkumar S.P.</h3> Shri Siddaramaiah Versus The State of Karnataka Represented By Its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha; The Special Secretary To His Excellency; Mr. Abraham ... 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered in the judgment are:Whether the petitions before the Governor and the complaints before the concerned Court were justified in the fact situation.Whether the approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) is mandatory in the given facts.Whether Section 17A of the PC Act requires only a Police Officer to seek approval from the Competent Authority.Whether the order of the Governor suffers from want of application of mind.Whether it would suffice for reasons to be recorded in the file of the decision-making authority and the same culled out in parts in the impugned order.Whether the decision taken by the Governor in alleged hottest haste of issuing a show cause notice on the same day of receipt of the petition has vitiated the entire decision.Whether reference to Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in the impugned order vitiates the entire order.Whether prima facie role of the petitioner is established.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Justification of Petitions and ComplaintsThe petitions and complaints were justified due to the sequence of events involving alleged irregularities and misuse of power by the petitioner, who is the Chief Minister. The facts revealed a series of transactions and decisions that led to undue advantage to the petitioner's family, warranting an investigation.Issue 2 & 3: Approval under Section 17A of the PC ActThe approval under Section 17A is mandatory as it acts as a protective filter against malicious prosecution of public servants. The law mandates that no enquiry or investigation can commence without prior approval from the competent authority. The court held that it is not only the police officer but also the complainant who can seek such approval, especially in private complaints.Issue 4 & 5: Application of Mind by the GovernorThe Governor's order did not suffer from non-application of mind. The decision-making process involved a thorough examination of the materials and was supported by reasons recorded in the file. The court emphasized that reasons in the file suffice, and detailed reasoning in the order itself is not mandatory for high offices like the Governor.Issue 6: Alleged Haste in Decision-makingThe court found that the alleged haste in issuing the show cause notice did not vitiate the decision. The urgency was justified given the gravity of the allegations, and the Governor's actions were not arbitrary or mala fide.Issue 7: Reference to Section 218 of BNSSThe reference to Section 218 of BNSS was acknowledged as erroneous since the crime was yet to be investigated. The court restricted the order to an approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, not a sanction under Section 218 of BNSS.Issue 8: Prima Facie Role of the PetitionerThe court found that the petitioner's family benefited significantly from the transactions in question, indicating a prima facie case for investigation. The petitioner, being in a position of power, was likely involved, directly or indirectly, in the decisions leading to undue advantage for his family.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe court upheld the Governor's decision to grant approval under Section 17A for investigation, emphasizing the need for a neutral and objective inquiry into the allegations. The judgment reinforced the principle that public servants, especially those in high office, should not shy away from investigations when serious allegations are made.The court concluded that the Governor acted within his discretion, independent of the Council of Ministers' advice, due to the apparent bias and conflict of interest. The judgment highlighted the importance of accountability and transparency in public office, quoting Benjamin Disraeli: 'All power is a trust - that we are accountable for its exercise - that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist.'
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
