The Karnataka High Court heard arguments, concerning the Governor’s decision to allow the prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case. The counsel for the complainant argued that this order is crucial for maintaining the purity of public administration.
The session, overseen by a bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, involved senior advocate K.G. Raghavan representing Mysore-based social activist Snehamayi Krishna, who had initiated the request for prosecuting the Chief Minister. Raghavan argued that the motivation behind seeking prosecution was rooted in the necessity for transparency and the restoration of public confidence in the administration. He pointed out that the state government, recognising the gravity of the allegations, had previously formed an inquiry commission led by a High Court judge following media reports on the MUDA scandal.
The case revolves around allegations that from 2003 to 2009, a 60:40 scheme was employed for land allotments by MUDA, which was later altered to a 50:50 scheme in 2015 to benefit certain individuals, including a person named Parvati Siddaramaiah. Raghavan questioned the legality of the allocation of 14 plots under this scheme, especially given that the contentious 3.16 acres of land, initially valued at Rs 3.24 lakh, was exchanged for these plots in a prestigious area. He argued that the allocation was made without proper discretion, raising the need for a comprehensive investigation.
“The conduct of public servants must meet the highest standards,” Raghavan asserted, emphasising that the Prevention of Corruption Act is applicable even if the involvement of the public servant in the alleged wrongdoing is minimal. He urged the court to permit an investigation to determine whether Chief Minister Siddaramaiah had any role in the MUDA resolution or decision, arguing that the principles of natural justice do not apply at the early stage of an inquiry under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Raghavan further contended that corruption, even when not explicitly illegal, involves the misuse of influence for personal gain, which diminishes public trust in governance. He highlighted that this case is not just a legal battle between two parties but a matter of significant public interest. While acknowledging that there is no statutory necessity for obtaining permission under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in this case, Raghavan maintained that the Governor’s order for prosecution was essential.
The government had previously ordered a judicial inquiry into the matter. While Chief Minister Siddaramaiah might eventually be acquitted, Raghavan underscored that Siddaramaiah held key positions—Deputy Chief Minister from 1998 to 99, Chief Minister from 2013 to 2018, and again from 2024—during different phases of the MUDA scam. After considering the arguments, the court decided to extend the interim order and adjourned the hearing until September 9, following a request from Advocate General K. Sashikiran Shetty.
Comments