Bengaluru ; The Karnataka High Court on Thursday conducted the hearing for the appeal filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, challenging the single-judge bench order that allowed an investigation against him in connection with the Muda scam. In the proceedings, the division bench of Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind heard arguments from both the sides. However, the court has fixed the next hearing for January 25, with no interim relief granted to the CM at this stage.
Arguments from Devaraju’s Lawyer, Dushyant Dave
Dushyant Dave, representing Devaraju, the key figure and land owner in the case, argued that the single-judge bench’s order against his client was issued without proper consideration. He stated that the Governor’s permission to proceed with the investigation was flawed, and that the High Court’s order had overlooked critical details of the case. Dave insisted that Devaraju, who was the original owner of the land involved in the denotification controversy, had no involvement in any wrongdoing. He further claimed that the compensation for the land in question had already been deposited in the civil court, and thus, the charges against Devaraju were baseless.
Dave also highlighted that the land in question, which had been denotified in 1998, was now valued at Rs 56 crore, while it was worth only Rs. 3 lakh at the time of denotification. He argued that the High Court had been misinformed and that the government’s denotification policies were standard procedures that could not be revisited years later. The lawyer also pointed out that Devaraju, who is now 80 years old, would suffer undue hardship if criminal prosecution were initiated against him at this stage of his life.
Counter-Arguments from Snehamayi Krishna’s Lawyer, KG Raghavan
In response, K.G. Raghavan, the lawyer for the complainant Snehamayi Krishna, argued that the single-judge bench had only issued a notice and not an order of investigation. He claimed that there was no decision yet on who would be investigated and that the appeal from Devaraju’s side was premature and without merit.
Raghavan also emphasized that the investigation should continue as per the legal process, and that any delay could hinder the course of justice. He argued that the High Court had acted within its jurisdiction and that the investigation was necessary to uncover the truth behind the allegations.
CM’s Lawyer, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Challenges the High Court Order
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing CM Siddaramaiah, took the floor to challenge the single-judge bench’s decision. He argued that the High Court had erred in allowing the investigation without following the due process as outlined under Rule 17A, which stipulates that the police must seek permission from the government before initiating an investigation against a public official. Singhvi contended that the Governor had violated constitutional rules in granting permission for the probe and that the cabinet should have been consulted before such a decision was made. He also referred to Supreme Court rulings which underscore the need for the executive to act collectively on matters of investigation against public officials.
Singhvi further argued that the decision of the single-judge bench could set a dangerous precedent, and the ongoing hearing of the CBI investigation should be postponed until a detailed review of the constitutional implications was undertaken. He requested that the hearing of the case be deferred to January, to ensure all constitutional questions were thoroughly addressed.
Kapil Sibal’s Argument on Constitutional Grounds
In his submissions, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state government, argued that the Governor did not have the constitutional authority to grant permission for the investigation against the Chief Minister. He contended that the Governor’s role was limited and that such permissions should be granted only under specific circumstances where something was pending. Sibal warned that granting such permissions without proper legal backing could lead to anarchy and undermine the rule of law.
Sibal also stressed that the matter needed to be examined from a constitutional perspective and called for the High Court to address the issues raised before any further investigation was allowed to proceed. He further suggested that the CBI investigation should be deferred until January, when a more detailed hearing could take place.
High Court’s Decision and Future Proceedings
After hearing all parties, the High Court decided not to stay the proceedings related to the CBI investigation. The court issued notices to the respondents and directed that the matter be listed for hearing on January 25. The division bench made it clear that they could not intervene in the ongoing investigation at this stage and upheld the single-judge bench’s order to allow the investigation to proceed.
The next hearing will be crucial in determining whether the investigation will move forward, or if the case will be delayed further due to the legal challenges raised by CM Siddaramaiah and his legal team.
This ongoing legal battle involving CM Siddaramaiah and the Muda scam is expected to have significant political ramifications, with both the ruling government and opposition parties closely monitoring the developments. The outcome of the CBI investigation could further intensify political tensions in the state.
Fresh Complaint Filed by Snehamayi Krishna with Lokayukta
Snehamayi Krishna, the complainant in the MUDA (Mysuru Urban Development Authority) 50:50 land allotment scam, Thursday submitted another petition to the Lokayukta, urging a detailed investigation into the alleged irregularities. Speaking to the media, Krishna revealed that massive financial misconduct had taken place in the allocation of plots under the controversial 50:50 scheme, involving multiple government officials.
In his statement, Krishna alleged that thousands of crores worth of illegal transactions had occurred, with officials reportedly diverting the ill-gotten money to their family members and associated companies. “According to the documents in my possession, former MUDA Commissioner DV Natesh and his wife, Rashmi, have invested in multiple companies under their names. They were appointed directors or partners in four companies, and substantial amounts of money were funneled through these entities. In addition, records show the purchase of a flat in an apartment in Bogadi and agricultural land in Ilawala Hobli, which further supports the case,” Krishna said.
Snehamayi Krishna further emphasized that he had submitted a formal complaint to the Lokayukta, requesting them to investigate these allegations and take appropriate action. “I have requested the Lokayukta to investigate the illegal money involved in the MUDA land allotment scheme, especially how officials allegedly invested the proceeds in their family members’ names or under close associates. If the investigation proves my allegations, I have asked that those responsible be charged as accused,” Krishna explained.
Claims of Siddaramaiah’s Influence in Land Allotment
Krishna also made claims regarding the involvement of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the land allotment scheme. He suggested that Siddaramaiah’s verbal influence played a role in helping Parvati Siddaramaiah secure alternative land under the 50:50 scheme. However, Krishna has also expressed doubts about the strength of the evidence supporting this claim, stating that there were no concrete proofs to back up the allegations.
“I believe Siddaramaiah’s influence might have played a role in securing the alternate land allotment for Parvati Siddaramaiah under the 50:50 scheme, but I am not confident about the strength of the evidence at this point. There is no strong documentation to substantiate this claim,” Krishna remarked.
Regarding ED Investigation and Legal Concerns
Snehamayi Krishna also addressed concerns raised by media about the ongoing Enforcement Directorate (ED) investigation into the case. He clarified that the information he provided to the Lokayukta was legitimate and that sharing details about criminal activities with investigative bodies is part of the legal process. “There is nothing wrong with informing the Lokayukta about the findings of the ED’s investigation. It is entirely within the legal framework to share such information with law enforcement agencies when it involves criminal activity,” Krishna stated.
Krishna has also sent a complaint to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) regarding the matter, urging them to look into the land allotment scam and the alleged illegal investments made by the officials involved.
This fresh petition comes in the backdrop of ongoing allegations and an investigation into the 50:50 scam, which has caused considerable political controversy, with accusations of high-level corruption and abuse of power. The Lokayukta is expected to take up the matter in the coming days.
