Karnataka HC rejects Siddaramaiah’s plea against Governor’s MUDA case move.
In a ruling by a single judge bench, Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasized the necessity of an investigation into the MUDA case and upheld the Karnataka Governor’s authority to make an independent decision. The court noted that the Governor, under the constitution, holds the power to act autonomously in certain matters, and that Siddaramaiah’s plea challenging the Governor’s move did not hold merit. The judge further added that the allegations made required thorough investigation before any conclusions could be drawn, thereby affirming the Governor’s decision to proceed with independent oversight of the matter.
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, September 24, dismissed Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s approval for an investigation into the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment case. The case involves allegations of irregularities in the allotment of compensatory sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife, B.M. Parvathi, in a prime locality in Mysuru.
A single judge bench, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivered the ruling, stating that an investigation was indeed necessary. The court affirmed the Governor’s authority to make an independent decision on the matter, finding no evidence that Governor Gehlot had acted without due consideration. Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that the Governor’s decision was within his constitutional rights and that the plea made by Siddaramaiah lacked sufficient merit.
Allegations in the MUDA Case
At the heart of the case are allegations surrounding the allotment of 14 prime sites by the MUDA to Siddaramaiah’s wife, B.M. Parvathi. These compensatory plots were reportedly allocated in a high-value area of Mysuru, and the sites are said to be far more valuable than the original land belonging to Parvathi that was acquired by the MUDA. The original land, located in a less developed area, was supposedly exchanged for these prime properties as part of a 50:50 compensation scheme.
The 50:50 scheme is an arrangement in which landowners, whose properties are acquired by the MUDA for development projects, receive compensatory sites in developed residential layouts, proportionate to their original holdings. However, in this case, it has been alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over the 3.16 acres of land that was said to have been “acquired” by the MUDA. The land in question is located at survey number 464 of Kasare village in Mysuru taluk. This lack of legal title over the land raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the entire allotment process.
Governor’s Sanction for Investigation
The Governor, on August 16, accorded sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, allowing for an investigation into the alleged irregularities. This sanction came after petitions were submitted by complainants Pradeep Kumar S.P., T.J. Abraham, and Snehamayi Krishna. The complainants had requested an inquiry into the transactions, raising concerns about misuse of power and favoritism in the allotment process.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act requires prior approval from the appropriate authority (in this case, the Governor) before any investigation into acts of corruption by a public servant can proceed. Given Siddaramaiah’s role as Chief Minister, the Governor’s sanction was necessary to move forward with any probe into the allegations.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is a more recent legislative measure aimed at reinforcing governance and public accountability, further reinforcing the need for transparency in cases involving public officials.
Siddaramaiah’s Challenge and the High Court’s Ruling
On August 19, three days after the Governor’s approval for the investigation, Siddaramaiah moved the Karnataka High Court, challenging the legality of the Governor’s order. In his petition, Siddaramaiah argued that the Governor’s sanction was unwarranted and that the complaints against him were politically motivated. The Chief Minister’s petition requested the High Court to annul the Governor’s approval for the investigation.
However, the High Court was not swayed by Siddaramaiah’s arguments. Justice Nagaprasanna, in his ruling, made it clear that the facts presented in the petition required further investigation. The judge noted that the alleged irregularities directly benefitted Siddaramaiah’s family, particularly his wife, and therefore warranted a proper inquiry.Justice Nagaprasanna also dissolved any interim orders that were in place regarding the investigation, meaning that the inquiry could now proceed without any legal hindrances.
Interim Orders and Next Steps
Prior to the final ruling, the Karnataka High Court had extended an interim order, which instructed the special court for people’s representatives to postpone its proceedings on the complaints against Siddaramaiah until the High Court had disposed of the petition. With the dismissal of Siddaramaiah’s plea, these interim protections have now been lifted, paving the way for the investigation to move forward.
The court’s ruling has reaffirmed the Governor’s constitutional powers to approve investigations in cases involving public officials, especially when there are concerns over the misuse of authority and public resources. The investigation will now proceed as per the provisions laid out under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Conclusion
The Karnataka High Court’s decision to dismiss Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s petition marks a significant development in the MUDA site allotment case. The court has upheld the necessity for an investigation into the allegations of irregularities in the allotment of sites to Siddaramaiah’s wife, B.M. Parvathi. With the Governor’s sanction for an investigation now affirmed by the court, the inquiry will continue to determine the validity of the claims made by the complainants. As this case unfolds, it remains a key issue in Karnataka’s political and legal landscape.