Why was Siddaramaiah's plea in MUDA case rejected? Here's what court said

The Karnataka High Court rejected Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the legality of the Governor's nod to an investigation against him over the alleged MUDA land scam.

In Short

• Karnataka High Court rejects Siddaramaiah's plea in MUDA case
• Siddaramaiah challenged Governor approving probe against him
• Court upholds Governor's decision, says allegations require investigation

In a major blow to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday rejected his petition challenging the legality of the Governor's nod to an investigation against him over the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam.

Siddaramaiah had challenged the approval given by Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot for an investigation against him under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Governor gave the nod to a probe after he received petitions by three activists, who alleged irregularities in the allotment of 14 sites to Siddaramaiah's wife by the MUDA in a prime locality.

In its order, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said it was difficult to accept that Siddaramaiah was not "behind the curtain" during the entire transaction of MUDA land, in which his family allegedly benefitted approximately Rs 56 crore.

"It is rather difficult to accept that the beneficiary of the entire transaction to which compensation is determined at Rs 3.56 lakh to become Rs 56 crore is not the family of the petitioner... How and why the rule was bent in favour of the family of the Chief Minister is what is required to be investigated into," Justice Nagaprasanna ruled.

In the petition, Siddaramaiah had argued that the Governor's sanction order was in violation of statutory mandates, and contrary to Constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India.

On this, the court said that it is difficult to expect the Cabinet, nominated by the Chief Minister, to be unbiased while deciding the issue of grant of sanction to prosecute their leader.

"The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation, in the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner (Siddaramaiah). The petition stands dismissed," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife, BM Parvathi, in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA. MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout.