The Karnataka High Court on Friday dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of probe into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah from the Lokayukta police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The single-judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that there was nothing on record to show that the Lokayukta Police had conducted a lopsided, partisan or shoddy investigation into the alleged MUDA scam.
In January 2025, the High Court had reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from all the parties.
Appearing for petitioner Snehamayi Krishna, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh argued that the prospective accused had no right to be heard at this stage. An accused or a suspect could not direct which investigating agency should investigate the case.
He submitted that during the earlier proceedings in connection with Siddaramaiah’s plea challenging the Governor’s sanction for probe, identical notes of three authorities were produced. A united approach was made by the Cabinet, the Chief Secretary and the Legal department, to defend the Chief Minister, he added.
Referring to various Supreme Court judgments, the Senior Counsel said that it was absolutely necessary to meet the needs of fair investigation in cases involving high functionaries, in order to meet public interest. This was completely applicable in this case, if the facts could speak for themselves.
Nobody was casting aspersions on the investigation, but it was unlikely to result in fairness, a fundamental requirement for investigation and trial. The court should not hesitate in transferring the probe to independent investigations. If there was a reasonable apprehension that fair investigation would not take place, the court could exercise its discretion, he added.
Senior Advocate Singh further contended that considering the facts of the case and people involved, including the state functionaries, there was no possibility of any fairness. They would be dictated to put everything under the carpet. Therefore, the investigation should be referred to the CBI, so as to ensure that the cause of justice is met with, he added.
Representing the original landowner, Devaraju J, from whom the brother-in-law of Siddaramiah had purchased the property, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave termed the current petition an abuse of process of law, which should be dismissed on the grounds that the citations were not applicable to the present case.
He further pointed out the delay in filing of the petition, stating that the petitioner approached the court in 2024, after digging out 10-year-old public documents.
To a query raised by the court whether the petition was filed on the same day the FIR was registered by the Lokayukta police on the direction of the court Dave informed that the petition was filed on September 27, 2024, the day the FIR was filed.
He further said “How is it that within one hour after registration of FIR that he (petitioner) can say Lokayukta cannot investigate, and it should be transferred to CBI. The law of acquiescence applies. His conduct is to be looked into.”
Seeking dismissal of the petition he argued “He is enjoying the fruit of investigation being ordered by the Lokayukta and now comes and says investigation should be by CBI. Today he (petitioner) is stifling the investigation and somehow wants to convict these people”.
Probe is transferred only after hearing parties, in this case no one knows what has happened
Representing the state government, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal apprised the Bench about the scenarios in which a High Court could order the transfer of investigation in a case to an independent agency or CBI.
He said in every case where an investigation was found to be tainted or malafide, both parties were aware of the probe carried out. Only after hearing both the parties, the High Court could order for transfer of the investigation. In this case, nobody knew what happened.
The entire basis of the petitioner’s arguments was that since the CM was involved in the case, so the state could not investigate. If this was correct, then the Lokayukta Act, which directed the probe against the CM, should be declared unconstitutional.
If the Lokayukta was claimed to be tainted as it was under the State’s control, then the same could be said for CBI as it came under the Central government.