A letter from the Governor’s Secretariat to the activists stated, “As directed by the Governor, I am providing the decision of the Competent Authority regarding the request for sanctioning prosecution against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhitha, 2023, for the alleged offenses cited in the petitions.”
Bengaluru: Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, a senior Congress leader, faces prosecution over alleged irregularities in land allocations by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has approved the prosecution in the MUDA land scam case following petitions from activists Pradeep Kumar, TJ Abraham, and Snehamayi Krishna.
A letter from the Governor’s Secretariat to the activists stated,
“As directed by the Governor, I am providing the decision of the Competent Authority regarding the request for sanctioning prosecution against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhitha, 2023, for the alleged offenses cited in the petitions.”
The Chief Minister’s Office has confirmed receipt of this communication.
Siddaramaiah has previously dismissed the allegations as “politically motivated.”
Last month, the Governor issued a “show-cause notice” to Siddaramaiah, demanding a response to the allegations within seven days and explaining why prosecution should not proceed. This led to a resolution from the state cabinet urging the Governor to retract the prosecution sanction. The Siddaramaiah-led Government accused the Governor of misusing his office.
The Governor’s notice followed a petition from anti-corruption activist TJ Abraham, who sought prosecution over alleged irregularities in MUDA. Abraham claimed that the multi-crore scam resulted in significant losses to the state’s finances.
His July complaint to the Lokayukta police alleged that the allocation of 14 alternative sites in a posh Mysuru area to Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, was illegal, resulting in a Rs 45 crore loss to the exchequer. The complaint also named Siddaramaiah, his wife, son S. Yathindra, and senior MUDA officials.
Activist Snehamayi Krishna also accused Siddaramaiah, his wife, and MUDA officials of involvement in the alleged scam. A new FIR was not filed as the police indicated that the investigation was already in progress.
Siddaramaiah claimed that the land in question was a gift from his wife’s brother, Mallikarjuna, in 1998. However, Krishna alleged that Mallikarjuna had illegally acquired the land in 2004 and registered it using forged documents, with assistance from Government and revenue officials. The land was recorded as purchased in 1998, and Parvathi sought compensation for it in 2014, during Siddaramaiah’s tenure as Chief Minister.
In 2021, the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) acquired a 3-acre plot owned by Parvathi Siddaramaiah in Kesare village for development purposes. In exchange, she was allocated plots in the upscale Vijayanagar area of south Mysuru, which are purportedly worth much more than her original Kesare land.
Abraham, President of the Karnataka Anti-Graft and Environmental Forum, has lodged a complaint alleging that Siddaramaiah did not disclose his wife’s land ownership in his 2023 Assembly election affidavit. The complaint argues that this omission was made “with his full knowledge and with possible ulterior motives” and calls for legal action against Siddaramaiah under Section 125A and Section 8 of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950. It also cites breaches of various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
The BJP, which has been advocating for a CBI investigation, recently conducted a weeklong padayatra from Bengaluru to Mysuru against the Congress Government.
READ ALSO: MUDA Scam | Karnataka Governor Seeks Response from CM Siddaramaiah
In response to the BJP’s criticism, Siddaramaiah noted that his wife received compensation while the BJP was in power and questioned the legality of the claims, asserting,
“If they (BJP) provided the site, how can they now call it illegal?”
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
