In a significant legal setback for Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed his petition challenging the Governor’s approval for an investigation into the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam. The case revolves around allegations of irregularities in the allotment of valuable land to Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, by the MUDA.
Siddaramaiah had sought to challenge the legality of the Governor’s sanction, which was granted following petitions from three activists who raised concerns over the allotment of 14 prime sites in Mysuru to his wife. The investigation was authorized under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The activists alleged that the value of the sites, approximately ₹56 crore, greatly exceeded the compensation of ₹3.56 lakh.
Court’s Rationale for Dismissal
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, in its order, pointed to Siddaramaiah’s involvement in the land transaction, rejecting his claim of non-involvement. The court remarked, “It is rather difficult to accept that the beneficiary of the entire transaction to which compensation is determined at ₹3.56 lakh, and now stands at ₹56 crore, is not the family of the petitioner. How and why the rule was bent in favour of the family of the Chief Minister is what is required to be investigated into.”
The court emphasized that the facts of the case warranted a thorough investigation, particularly given the benefit accrued to Siddaramaiah’s 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 (Siddaramaiah). The petition stands dismissed,” Justice Nagaprasanna ruled.
Siddaramaiah’s Argument
In his petition, Siddaramaiah argued that the Governor’s order violated statutory mandates and Constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is considered binding under Article 163 of the Indian Constitution. He contended that the Governor should not have bypassed this advice while granting sanction for investigation.
However, the court dismissed this argument, noting that the Cabinet, appointed by Siddaramaiah, could not be expected to make an impartial decision on the issue of sanctioning an investigation against their leader. The court stated, “It is difficult to expect the Cabinet, nominated by the Chief Minister, to be unbiased while deciding the issue of grant of sanction to prosecute their leader.”
Background of the Case
The MUDA land scam involves allegations that compensatory sites in an upscale area of Mysuru were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, under a 50:50 scheme in exchange for 3.16 acres of her land acquired by MUDA for residential development. The compensatory sites allotted were in a prime locality with significantly higher property value compared to the original land owned by Parvathi, raising concerns over the fairness of the allotment process.
With the High Court’s dismissal of his plea, the investigation into the MUDA land scam will proceed, dealing a blow to Siddaramaiah’s political standing as Chief Minister of Karnataka.
