A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court has issued notices to the Central and State governments, along with Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, on an appeal challenging a single judge’s decision denying a request for a CBI investigation into the MUDA case.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court sought a response from Chief Minister Siddaramaiah regarding a request for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.
A Division Bench comprised of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind issued notices to the CBI, the Central government, the Karnataka government, and Siddaramaiah himself, in response to an appeal challenging a single judge’s decision to deny the transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
Also Read: MUDA Scam | Karnataka HC Adjourns CM Siddaramaiah’s CBI Probe to January 27
Notices were also served to Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, and another individual, Devaraju, among other respondents. The allegations in the MUDA case suggest that Siddaramaiah misused his official position to facilitate the irregular allotment of land to his wife, BM Parvathi.
Activist Snehamayi Krishnan filed a complaint regarding this matter. In July 2024, the Governor of Karnataka granted permission to prosecute Siddaramaiah. Currently, the Karnataka Lok Ayukta police are investigating the case.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate KG Raghavan, representing Krishnan, argued that the Lok Ayukta police are unlikely to conduct a fair investigation.
He stated,
“The direction that we sought before the learned single judge was that the matter should be left to the Central Bureau of Investigation and not be left in the hands of the investigation wing of the Lokayuktha because according to us, the investigation wing of the Lokayuktha is subject to the overall superintendence of the government, which is headed by the person against whom the accusation is made, namely the Chief Minister of the State.”
The hearing also included a discussion between the Bar and the Bench about how the maintainability of cases is sometimes determined before they reach High Court judges.
Chief Justice Anjaria expressed frustration regarding the registry’s role in assessing maintainability, remarking,
“It is annoying that the office is judging about maintainability, though not in this matter. (It is as if) our jurisdiction is taken away.”
Raghavan agreed, noting,
“Exactly, and in fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has now taken the view that every writ petition is maintainable; whether it is entertainable is a different issue.”
Chief Justice Anjaria further commented,
“Here, the maintainability is part of office objections. It is not comprehensible, at least for me,”
Also added humorously,
“Maintainability is often in the hands of lawyers also. If they argue well, we entertain… this is all in lighter vein.”
The case will be heard again on April 28.
The allegations center on the purported corruption involving the MUDA’s land grants to Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi.
According to the complaint, Parvathi was “gifted” a plot of land measuring just over three acres by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy.
Also Read: Karnataka High Court Directs Lokayukta to Detail MUDA Probe Against CM Siddaramaiah
This land initially acquired, then de-notified, and subsequently purchased by Swamy, who claimed to have bought it in 2004 and gifted it to his sister. The land was allegedly developed by MUDA, despite being privately owned.
Parvathi reportedly sought compensation for the illegally developed land and received significantly inflated compensation, including 14 more valuable plots under a 50:50 scheme.
The Lok Ayukta police are currently investigating the case, but Krishnan’s plea for a CBI inquiry was initially dismissed by single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna, who asserted that the Lok Ayukta does not lack the independence required for the investigation.
This ruling has been contested by Krishnan before the Division Bench. Siddaramaiah has also challenged the Governor’s decision to sanction his prosecution, but Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed that plea on September 24, 2024. An appeal against this ruling is also pending, scheduled for April 28.
Notably, the Lok Ayukta police had previously filed a closure report in the MUDA case, clearing Siddaramaiah, BM Parvathi, and Mallikarjuna Swamy, citing insufficient evidence. Both Krishnan and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) have contested this closure report in a special court in Bengaluru.
The special court, On April 15, postponed its decision on whether to accept the report, noting that the Lok Ayukta expressed a desire to continue investigating the case. The court will make its decision after the Lok Ayukta submits its final report.