Following a brief hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the respondents to submit their responses and scheduled the next hearing for August 29.
![[MUDA Site Case] Relief for Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah as Karnataka HC Defers Special Court Proceedings Till Aug 29](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-119.png?resize=600%2C338&ssl=1)
KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court on Monday(19th Aug) directed the trial court to postpone proceedings against Chief Minister (CM) Siddaramaiah concerning private complaints related to alleged land allocation irregularities by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
READ ALSO: MUDA Scam | Karnataka Governor Seeks Response from CM Siddaramaiah
Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot had authorized the prosecution of the CM on August 17. Siddaramaiah, challenging the sanction in the High Court, argued that it was an attempt to destabilize his administration.
“Despite strong objections from the complainants regarding the issuance of an injunction, as the matter is currently under the Court’s consideration and the pleadings are incomplete, the concerned court is directed to delay its proceedings until the next hearing. No immediate action shall be taken regarding the challenged sanction,” the Court stated.
Justice M Nagaprasanna presided over the matter, with Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi representing the CM and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta representing the Governor. The High Court directed the respondents to submit their replies and scheduled the next hearing for August 29.
Despite strong objections from the complainants, the High Court restrained the trial court from proceeding with the case until the next hearing. The Court emphasized that no action should be taken concerning the sanction while the matter was under its consideration.
The Governor’s decision followed complaints from social activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar SP, who alleged that irregularities were involved in the award of 14 plots in Mysuru to Siddaramaiah’s wife by the MUDA. Abraham had initially sought sanction for prosecution in July, prompting the Governor to issue a show-cause notice to Siddaramaiah.
During the hearing, Singhvi argued that significant constitutional questions were at stake, asserting that the Governor had failed to provide any justification for granting the prosecution sanction. He also contended that the State Cabinet had previously dismissed the complaint as baseless, and therefore, sanction should not have been granted.
Singhvi argued, “We have an elected government with the people’s mandate. Anyone can come forward with a complaint, even decades after the event, and a cooperative Governor grants sanction.” He further noted that the State Cabinet had already dismissed the complaint as frivolous before the Governor’s sanction, implying it should not have been granted.
“This involves incidents from 1992 to 2022,”
Singhvi emphasized, asserting that the Governor was obligated to follow the Cabinet’s decision.
On the reasoning behind the Governor’s sanction, Singhvi commented,
“The Governor does not address a single issue. He merely mentions a conflict of interest and includes a brief paragraph suggesting that the Cabinet is the Chief Minister’s alter ego.”
Singhvi also clarified that the allegation was that the CM was a beneficiary, not a decision-maker, a key element under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Section 17A specifies that no police officer can conduct an inquiry or investigation into any alleged offense by a public servant without official sanction if the offense relates to actions taken in the course of their official duties.
Singhvi elaborated,
“Two crucial conditions required under Section 17A are absent here—there is no investigating agency involved, and the complaint is from private individuals, not a police officer regarding a public official’s decision, which is the case with the CM.”
Concluding his arguments, Singhvi remarked,
“This entire situation is an attempt to destabilize the government. Constitutional law, law, and politics are interwoven. Judges cannot ignore reality by isolating themselves. That’s not how the judiciary functions.”
Solicitor General Mehta, representing the Governor, responded to Singhvi’s claim of a “friendly Governor,” stating,
“I represent the Governor’s office. I do not have the liberty of using terms like ‘friendly Governor.’ It is inappropriate. If I were to use terms like ‘subservient cabinet’ or ‘corrupt Chief Minister,’ it would also be in poor taste.”
While Mehta refrained from taking a clear stance on the stay order, he argued, “The Governor, as a constitutional authority, should not have his decisions obstructed by another constitutional authority.”
The counsel for the complainants opposed the stay, but the Court decided to grant it. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked,
“This Court is hearing the case now. Any ruling by the magistrate court regarding the sanction would undermine these proceedings, and I will not allow that.”
At this point, Mehta suggested that the complainants might request an adjournment in the trial court the following day. Singhvi, however, insisted on a stay, noting,
“One of the complainants is already awaiting orders, and we were not informed of this development. We learned of it through the media.”
Singhvi further pointed out that the allegations spanned from 1992 to 2022 and insisted that the Governor was bound by the Cabinet’s decision. He criticized the Governor for not addressing any legal or factual issues, stating that the decision only mentioned a potential conflict of interest and did not consider the Cabinet’s stance.
Singhvi concluded by stating that the entire matter seemed to be an attempt to undermine the government.
Solicitor General Mehta, representing the Governor, rebutted Singhvi’s remarks, stressing the importance of maintaining respect for constitutional offices. He suggested that if the trial court received an adjournment, it could allow the High Court proceedings to continue smoothly.
Nevertheless, the High Court stayed the trial court proceedings, affirming that it would not allow any actions that could undermine its consideration of the matter.
Opposition parties in Karnataka have accused Siddaramaiah of using fraudulent documents to grant land intended for the Dalit community to his wife, causing significant financial losses. The allegations also involve top MUDA officials and Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law, Malikarjuna Swamy Devaraj. The Chief Minister has denied all accusations.
WHAT IS MUDA SCAM?
The MUDA land scam involves allegations by social activists that 14 premium plots in Mysuru were unlawfully allotted to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife as compensation for acquired land, resulting in a loss of Rs 45 crore to the state treasury.
The land in question, a 3.16-acre parcel in Kesare village, was originally owned by another party but was transferred to Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law, Mallikarjuna Swamy Devaraj, in 2005. Activists claim Mallikarjuna illegally acquired the land in 2004 using forged documents, though it was officially recorded as purchased in 1998.
In 2014, while Siddaramaiah was the chief minister, his wife Parvathi sought compensation for the land under MUDA’s 50:50 scheme, which grants 50% developed land to those who lose undeveloped land due to acquisitions. Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot approved Siddaramaiah’s prosecution by the Lokayukta following petitions from activists TJ Abraham, Pradeep Kumar, and Snehamayi Krishna.
Earlier, the Governor had issued a show-cause notice to Siddaramaiah questioning why he should not be prosecuted, but the state government recommended withdrawing the notice. Siddaramaiah has denied the charges, labeling them politically driven and stating that his wife received proper compensation during the BJP’s rule.
Read Previous Reports on Muda Scam
