Editorial: Governor’s gambit

CHENNAI: Karnataka governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot’s decision to sanction the prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over alleged illegalities in the allotment of prime land in Mysuru to his wife is the sort of premature exclamation that one has come to expect of gubernatorial appointees in Narendra Modi’s Prime Ministerial tenure. In every state ruled by the opposition, the governor has acted as the battering ram of the BJP. So obvious are their political machinations that they rarely win the backing of public opinion, and are therefore destined to fail, as they have repeatedly in Tamil Nadu, Delhi, Punjab, West Bengal, and other states where the governor has acted as the viceroy of the Delhi imperium.

Gehlot surprised no one by releasing a communique to the Siddaramaiah administration last Saturday, notifying his permission for prosecution of the chief minister under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He had for weeks been winding himself up for such an action. On July 26, he served a show-cause notice on the chief minister, demanding an explanation how the latter’s wife had come to be allotted 14 prime plots in Mysuru in exchange for 3.5 acres of not-so-valuable agricultural land that was acquired for a layout by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

Why the governor’s action appears premature and premeditated is that the sanction of prosecution is not based on findings of an investigation, or an official request by the state’s police, but on the basis of allegations levelled by three activists. In issuing his order, Gehlot disregarded a resolution by a Cabinet meeting, from which the CM had recused himself, recommending against sanction of prosecution as two inquiries, one by an IAS officer and another by a retired judge, had already been constituted to examine the MUDA allotments.

The governor claims that his order disregarding the Cabinet’s counsel against sanctioning prosecution is based on a 2004 judgement by the Supreme Court in a case relating to Madhya Pradesh. The apex court had then implied that the governor could use his own discretion to sanction prosecution when there is “overwhelming material showing that a prima facie case is made out…” To not use his discretion in such a case and disallow prosecution, that judgement implied, would amount to a “complete breakdown of the law”.

It's debatable whether Gehlot is justified in relying on that ruling to disregard the advice of the Council of Ministers as well as the CM’s explanation to him regarding the case at hand. His own order says that “it seems to me that there are two versions in relation to the same set of facts.” So where is the “overwhelming material showing that a prima facie case is made out…” that triggered his discretion?

There are so many grey areas in the governor’s order that the courts, where this case is certainly destined to end up, will have much to fret over. Apart from the justification for Gehlot to invoke his discretion, there is the fine point whether he is only triggering Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates an investigation, or also Section 19, which stipulates prosecution.

From the rich body of precedents compiled by BJP governors nationwide, we know this is a political gambit, which will invite a political response from the Congress. And the people will be none the wiser, despite all the dramatic cut and thrust put on show by the duellists.