MUDA case: Karnataka High Court rejects CM Siddaramaiah’s plea against Governor’s order

MUDA case: In a legal setback for Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court dismissed his petition challenging the Governor’s sanction for an investigation into allegations of irregularities in a site allotment case. The case pertains to the allotment of 14 prime properties to Siddaramaiah’s wife, B M Parvathi, by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

The controversy stems from an alleged misuse of power, where compensatory sites were allotted to Parvathi under a 50:50 scheme in an upscale locality in Mysuru. The land in question had a higher property value than the original 3.16 acres of land in Kasare village, Mysuru, which was acquired by MUDA. Under the MUDA scheme, landowners were compensated with 50 per cent of developed land in exchange for undeveloped land acquired for residential layouts. It is alleged that Parvathi had no legal title to the land, raising questions about the legality of the site allotment.

On September 12, after six hearings that began on August 19, a single judge bench led by Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled against the Chief Minister, dismissing the petition. The court found that the facts of the case warranted further investigation, especially as the direct beneficiary of the alleged misconduct was Siddaramaiah’s own family.

“The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed,” ruled Justice Nagaprasanna.

The judge also dissolved the interim order issued on August 19, which had directed the special court for people’s representatives to defer its proceedings until the High Court disposed of the petition. With the interim order dissolved, the investigation against the Chief Minister can now proceed.

On August 16, Karnataka Governor Thawarchand Gehlot granted approval for the investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The approval followed petitions filed by complainants Pradeep Kumar S P, T J Abraham, and Snehamayi Krishna, who sought an inquiry into the alleged site allotment irregularities.

Siddaramaiah quickly moved to challenge the Governor’s order in the Karnataka High Court on August 19, arguing that the sanction was issued without proper consideration and violated statutory procedures. He contended that the Governor’s decision was contrary to constitutional principles and failed to follow the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is required under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.

Siddaramaiah’s petition sought to quash the Governor’s order, claiming it was legally unsustainable, procedurally flawed, and motivated by extraneous factors.

Also Read: Supreme Court notice to Punjab on Himachal Pradesh’s plea to dismiss civil suit on Shanan project

Legal Representation and Submissions

Chief Minister Siddaramaiah was represented by high-profile legal experts, including senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Prof. Ravivarma Kumar. Solicitor-General of India Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Governor, while Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty also made submissions.

The complainants who had sought the investigation against Siddaramaiah were represented by a team of senior advocates, including Maninder Singh, Prabhuling K Navadgi, Lakshmi Iyengar, Ranganath Reddy, and K G Raghavan.

With the Karnataka High Court dismissing Siddaramaiah’s petition, the legal proceedings will move forward. The case has garnered significant attention due to the involvement of the state’s Chief Minister and the potential implications for his political standing. The court’s decision to uphold the Governor’s sanction highlights the importance of investigating potential misuse of power, especially when public figures and their families are involved.

Also Read: BJP’s strategic blueprint: Gaining ground ahead of Jharkhand elections