I respect the Judiciary; will follow court orders: Karnataka Speaker

News Network

July 12, 2019

Bengaluru, Jul 12: Karnataka Legislative Assembly Speaker K R Ramesh Kumar today said that he has full respect to the judiciary and there is no reason for not following a Court order.

His comments comes in the wake of the Congress-JDS Coalition government in the State facing a major crisis with 14 legislators tendering their resignation to their MLA seats and Supreme Court asking the Speaker to hear the ‘rebel’ MLAs and decide on their resignation. The apex court had asked the Speaker to hear the disgruntled MLAs by 6 PM yesterday and decide on the matter.

However, the Speaker has appealed to the Apex Court seeking more time to ‘understand’ whether the resignations were genuine and voluntary as per Constitution.

Speaking to reporters here on Friday, the Speaker said if Court order, in respect of the resignation letters submitted by some legislators, was to be followed and ‘’if there was any misunderstanding, we can ask the court to clarify and guide us as Supreme Court is supreme. There is no need to create any controversy nor clash of interest as Judiciary is supreme and the Legislature should go along with it,’’ he added.

He said if there was any confusion of use of words it can be sorted out. It should not be blown out of proportions.

The Speaker had said yesterday that in the current political situation, ‘’I have to inquire whether they (resignations) are voluntary and I have to abide by Article 190 of the Constitution and follow procedure.’’

He said he was not connected with political instability in Karnataka but will go by the rule book as for as accepting or rejecting the resignation letters of the dissident legislators.

Comments

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

No relief for Siddaramaiah in MUDA case as HC junks plea against Governor's sanction

News Network

September 24,2024

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.

Comments