As the decision of Karnataka governor H.R. Bhardwaj sanctioning the prosecution of state chief minister B.S. Yeddyurappa in an alleged corruption case has become a fresh point of confrontation between the Congress and the BJP, a new look into the Supreme Court verdict on the governor’s powers on the issue has become all the more curious in the emerging political scenario.
The interesting part of the 2004 judgment by a five-judge constitution bench was that it came on the backdrop of similar high-pitched political battle between the Congress and BJP then fought in Madhya Pradesh on the sanction issue with the then Digvijay Singh-led Congress government under attack by the Opposition BJP in a land scam case.
The bench was incidentally headed by Justice N. Santosh Hegde, who is also linked to the present controversy in Karnataka in the capacity of state’s Lokayukta and seized of the complaints about the alleged illegal allotment of land by the Yeddyurappa government.
The Supreme Court bench having Justices S.N. Variava, B.P. Singh, H.K. Sema and S.B. Sinha (all retired), besides Justice Hegde, had settled once and for all the controversy over the issue of “sanction” holding that the governor can act “independent” of the council of ministers if a complaint is sent to him against the chief minister or any minister.
“If the governor cannot act in his own discretion, there will be a complete breakdown of the rule of the law as it will then be open to the governments in the states to take refuge behind the question of sanction,” the top court had ruled.
However, the Supreme Court laid down the condition that while using his “discretionary powers” the governor has to make himself “fully assured” that there “exists overwhelming material showing that a prima facie case is made out for grant of sanction.”
Although the top court held that the council of ministers has the prerogative to “approve or reject” any application for sanction but explained that if a complaint is sent directly to the governor, he can use his discretionary powers available in the Constitution to take an “independent” decision.
The top court had said that the use of discretionary powers by the governor was necessary as otherwise “it will lead to a situation when the people in power will breach the law with impunity knowing that the sanction for their prosecution will not be given.”
The ruling was govern against the Madhya Pradesh high court decision striking down the governor’s sanction order for prosecuting two ministers — Rajendra K. Singh and Bishau Ram Yadav — in the Digvijay Singh ministry accused of corruption in a land scam case. The only difference in was the FIR was already registered.
against the two ministers on recommendations of the Lokayukta but the Digvijay Singh ministry had refused prosecution sanction to the state police. The governor, however, had accorded the same overruling the government decision.
The two ministers had challenged the governor’s order in the HC. By the time the HC decided the case quashing the governor’s order, the power equations in the state had changed with the BJP forming the government and it challenged the HC verdict in the Supreme Court stating that the governor was right in using his discretionary powers.