<p>A single-bench of the High Court on Monday held the view that the issue between the chief minister and the governor must be heard by a larger bench. <br /><br />It also directed the registry to place Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa’s petition before the chief justice. The chief minister had sought to quash the sanction to prosecute him, issued by Governor H R Bhardwaj, following a complaint by two city-based advocates Sirajin Basha and KN Balraj. On the first day of hearing the chief minister’s petition, Justice A S Bopanna issued the direction as it raises larger constitutional questions and also the maintainability of writ petitions. <br /><br />“ In exercise of power under Section 8 of Karnataka High Court Act, this matter is directed to be placed before the chief justice to take a decision and place it before appropriate bench,” he observed. Justice Bopanna also said that the summary of the argument by counsel for respondents PP Rao be placed before the new bench. Earlier, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Yeddyurappa, submitted that the January 21, 2011, sanctions is challenged on the grounds that the governor’s decision is biased and had been taken without any judicial scrutiny.<br /><br />Terming the sanction unconstitutional, the senior advocate said the state government has been facing troubles since Bhardwaj’s arrival. He also highlighted that the governor had recommended for President’s rule in the state twice. <br /><br />He also mentioned that the governor gave the sanction against the advice of the council of ministers, who had asked him to refrain from making orders as the matter was still pending before Lokayukta and constitution of a commission for further investigation.<br /><br />In a court packed with advocates, Jethmalani pointed out that the sanction order was issued within three weeks of receiving the complaint, when even agencies like the CBI may not finish reading five volumes of documents and begin enquiry in such a short period. “ It was not referred to any independent agency. indeed he is an expert criminal lawyer,” he said.<br /><br />P P Hegde, counsel for respondent, questioned why the governor has not been made a party to the petition. Though the first respondent is principal secretary, office of the governor has been made a party since it was he who has signed the sanction, he stated. He further said that if the governor had not accorded the sanction, democracy would have been at stake and there would have been breakdown of law.<br /></p>
<p>A single-bench of the High Court on Monday held the view that the issue between the chief minister and the governor must be heard by a larger bench. <br /><br />It also directed the registry to place Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa’s petition before the chief justice. The chief minister had sought to quash the sanction to prosecute him, issued by Governor H R Bhardwaj, following a complaint by two city-based advocates Sirajin Basha and KN Balraj. On the first day of hearing the chief minister’s petition, Justice A S Bopanna issued the direction as it raises larger constitutional questions and also the maintainability of writ petitions. <br /><br />“ In exercise of power under Section 8 of Karnataka High Court Act, this matter is directed to be placed before the chief justice to take a decision and place it before appropriate bench,” he observed. Justice Bopanna also said that the summary of the argument by counsel for respondents PP Rao be placed before the new bench. Earlier, senior advocate Ram Jethmalani, appearing for Yeddyurappa, submitted that the January 21, 2011, sanctions is challenged on the grounds that the governor’s decision is biased and had been taken without any judicial scrutiny.<br /><br />Terming the sanction unconstitutional, the senior advocate said the state government has been facing troubles since Bhardwaj’s arrival. He also highlighted that the governor had recommended for President’s rule in the state twice. <br /><br />He also mentioned that the governor gave the sanction against the advice of the council of ministers, who had asked him to refrain from making orders as the matter was still pending before Lokayukta and constitution of a commission for further investigation.<br /><br />In a court packed with advocates, Jethmalani pointed out that the sanction order was issued within three weeks of receiving the complaint, when even agencies like the CBI may not finish reading five volumes of documents and begin enquiry in such a short period. “ It was not referred to any independent agency. indeed he is an expert criminal lawyer,” he said.<br /><br />P P Hegde, counsel for respondent, questioned why the governor has not been made a party to the petition. Though the first respondent is principal secretary, office of the governor has been made a party since it was he who has signed the sanction, he stated. He further said that if the governor had not accorded the sanction, democracy would have been at stake and there would have been breakdown of law.<br /></p>
