The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a petition filed by Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel HD Kumaraswamy, seeking to quash criminal proceedings in a land de-notification case related to his tenure as Chief Minister of Karnataka in 2007.
The Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that the Union Minister could not seek immunity under the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, since the amendment could not be applied to past offences.
The verdict has cleared the way for trial to proceed in the case related to the de-notification of 2 acres and 24 guntas of land in Halagi Vaderahalli village, Banashankari, acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 1997.
Despite objections from BDA, the then Chief Minister Kumaraswamy ordered the de-notification of the land in 2007, following which it was sold to private parties for Rs 4.14 crore in 2010.
Following a private complaint, the Lokayukta Police initiated probe under relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the Karnataka Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act.
Kumaraswamy moved the Karnataka High Court against the FIR, which dismissed his petition in 2015.
He then filed a petition in the Supreme Court, which refused to interfere with the High Court order in 2016.
In 2019, while Kumaraswamy was serving his second term as Chief Minister, a closure report was filed in the case.
The Special Judge (MPs & MLAs), however, rejected the report and summoned Kumaraswamy, ruling that the allegations warranted trial.
The Minister again moved the Karnataka High Court, which upheld the summoning order, stating that there was no ground for interference given the seriousness of the allegations.
Appearing for Kumaraswamy, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi argued that the trial could not proceed without prior sanction from the government, since Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was amended in 2018.
Representing the State of Karnataka, Senior Advocate Harin Rawal and Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar vehemently opposed his plea, arguing that sanction was not required as Kumaraswamy had ceased to hold public office. The 2018 amendment could not be applied to past offences, the Counsels added.