The Karnataka High Court has stayed till August 29, the proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over his involvement in the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land allocation scam.
A special court was scheduled to hear the case this week against the Chief Minister.
The single-judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that since the proceedings were pending before the High Court, the trial court shall defer its proceedings till the next date of hearing. There shall be no precipitative action qua these complaints, it added.
On August 17, Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot granted sanction to prosecute the Chief Minister in connection with the alleged irregularities in the allotment of alternative sites by MUDA during Siddaramaiah’s tenure as Chief Minister in his previous term.
The Governor granted sanction for investigation and prosecution against Siddaramaiah under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita on a complaint filed by activists TJ Abraham, Mysore’s Snehamai Krishna and Bangalore’s Pradeep Kumar SP.
Abraham initially sought the Governor’s sanction in July. The Governor had then issued a show cause notice to Siddaramaiah.
Later on August 17, the Chief Minister moved the High Court against the Governor, contending that the sanction was politically-motivated and issued without proper application of mind, violating statutory and constitutional principles, including the binding advice of the Council of Ministers under Article 163 of the Constitution.
Appearing for Siddaramaiah today, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that the Governor’s decision was flawed and lacked merit.
Singhvi argued that the complaint against the Chief Minister was frivolous and that the Governor disregarded a detailed 100-page report from the state Cabinet, which outlined why the complaint did not warrant sanction.
He further submitted that the Governor’s brief, two-page sanction order provided no reasoning for approving the investigation. Referring to previous judgments, including the Nabam Rebia case, Singhvi argued that the Governor’s discretion should be limited, especially when it conflicted with the advice of the Cabinet.
Appearing for the Governor, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the decision to grant sanction was valid and that the Governor acted within his constitutional authority.
Mehta suggested that in cases involving the Chief Minister, exceptions could be made, allowing the Governor to independently grant sanction if there was a reasonable suspicion of bias by the Cabinet.
Despite opposition from the complainants against the grant of injunction to the order of the Governor, the High Court stayed the proceedings.
The case pertained to allegations that there were irregularities in the award of around 14 plots of land in Mysuru to Siddaramaiah’s wife by MUDA.
The opposition parties have reportedly alleged that the land meant for members of the Dalit community was usurped and fraudulently granted to Siddaramiah’s wife by using forged documents, leading to a loss of thousands of crores.
Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law Malikarjuna Swamy Devaraj is also alleged to have played a role in the alleged scam. The case involves allegations against top officials of MUDA as well. CM Siddaramaiah has denied all allegations.