Karnataka HC Backs Governor's Sanction To Prosecute CM Siddaramaiah In MUDA Scam

The Karnataka High Court upheld the sanction granted by Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with the MUDA scam. On Tuesday, Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed Siddaramaiah's plea challenging the Governor's approval for three individuals to file corruption charges against him regarding land allocated to his wife, Parvathi, by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

The Court stated that the complainants were justified in pursuing their complaint and seeking the Governor's approval. While acknowledging that the Governor usually acts on the advice of the council of ministers, the Court noted that he can make independent decisions in exceptional circumstances, which applied to this case.

The Court said that private complainants have the right to seek such sanctions from the Governor, and it is not necessary for a police officer to do so. "The approval under Section 17A is mandatory in this context, and it does not require a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint under Sections 200 or 223 of the BNSS. It is the duty of the complainants to seek such approval," the Court stated.

Siddaramaiah's counsel requested a two-week stay on the order to allow for an appeal, but this request was denied. "I can't stay my own order. Any interim relief subsisting shall stand dissolved," the single-judge remarked.

The sanction was granted on July 26 following private complaints from activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar SP. The complaints alleged that Siddaramaiah's wife, Parvathi, received a land plot of over three acres as a gift from her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy. The land, initially acquired and then de-notified, was allegedly developed by MUDA while still owned by private individuals.

Swamy claimed to have purchased the land in 2004 and gifted it to his sister. However, as the land was developed illegally by MUDA, Parvathi sought compensation, reportedly receiving inflated compensation, including 14 developed plots worth significantly more than the original three acres, under a 50:50 scheme.

Siddaramaiah has consistently maintained that the decisions regarding his wife's compensation were made by MUDA independently, without his influence. He has also accused the Governor of acting mala fide in granting the sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, asserting it was done without proper consideration.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the Chief Minister, argued that the Governor failed to adequately assess his August 16 sanction order. He highlighted the unusual urgency in the sanction process, contrasting it with the nearly three-year delay in rejecting a similar request regarding former BJP minister Shashikala Jole.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Governor's office, argued that the Governor issued the sanction after finding prima facie material for investigation. He asserted that the Governor chose to act independently, rather than following the council of ministers, which had merely replicated the State's brief and advised against the sanction.

The lawyers for the complainants contended that the sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was legally valid, as it merely initiated an investigation into whether the Chief Minister was linked to the questionable land allotments to his wife.