MUDA scam: Karnataka HC says prima facie rules bent to favour CM Siddaramaiah’s family, rejects plea against sanction for corruption probe

The Karnataka HC noted it is difficult to accept CM #Siddaramaiah was not “behind the curtain” during entire transaction of #Muda land, in which his family allegedly benefitted approximately Rs 56 Crores.

On 24th September, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the petition filed by the Chief Minister of the state, Siddaramaiah, in which he challenged the Governor’s approval to investigate and prosecute him under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in connection with the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam. The Karnataka HC noted it is difficult to accept CM #Siddaramaiah was not “behind the curtain” during the entire transaction of #Muda land, in which his family allegedly benefitted approximately Rs 56 Crores.

The judgment was passed by a single-judge bench, Justice M. Nagaprasanna. He observed that the complainants were justified in filing their complaint and seeking approval from the Governor, which was required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Karnataka HC further noted that the Governor has the power to independently decide on such matters without seeking advice from the Council of Ministers, especially in cases with exceptional circumstances, such as when the Chief Minister himself is involved.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted, “The facts narrated in the petition undoubtedly warrant investigation, considering that the beneficiary of the alleged acts is not an external party but the petitioner’s own family.” Dismissing the petition, Justice Nagaprasanna affirmed that an inquiry into the matter was necessary in light of the details presented.

The court clarified the application of Section 17A, ruling, “Approval under Section 17A does not require a police officer to seek it in cases of private complaints registered under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code or Section 220 of the BNSS against a public servant. It is the responsibility of the complainant to obtain such approval.”

Regarding the question of whether the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, Karnataka HC noted, “In normal circumstances, the Governor must act on the advice of the Council of Ministers, but in exceptional situations, such as the present case, he can exercise independent discretion.” Justice Nagaprasanna further added that the court did not find any fault in the Governor’s decision to act independently in granting approval for the investigation into the Chief Minister. The court emphasised that it was sufficient if the reasoning behind such decisions was recorded in the official file.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the Governor’s orders did not suffer from any “non-application of mind.” The court stated that the decision, in fact, displayed an “abundance of application of mind.” The court also clarified that a personal hearing was not necessary under Section 17A, though if needed, the authority could choose to offer one.

The court dismissed the claims that the Governor acted in “hot haste” and held that the order was limited to approval under Section 17A and did not extend to granting prosecution sanction under Section 218 of the BNSS.

Notably, on 17th August, the Governor of Karnataka sanctioned an inquiry against CM Siddaramaiah in the alleged multi-crore MUDA scam. The CM then approached the Karnataka HC seeking directions to quash the sanction against him. The High Court had directed the trial court to defer all proceedings against CM Siddaramaiah until the next hearing.

In his plea, CM Siddaramaiah argued that the orders passed by the Governor lacked any justification for considering him prima facie guilty. He claimed that the discretionary powers of the Governor in such matters were limited. Appearing for CM Siddaramaiah, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi emphasised that public servants have statutory protections that need to be respected. He further argued that there was a protective framework in place for elected officials, ensuring that investigations are not used as political tools to undermine an electoral mandate.

Arguing on the applicability of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Singhvi said that the alleged offence occurred in 2005, and the provisions of Section 17A, which came into effect in 2018, could not be applied retrospectively. He also argued that the Governor did not provide any responses to his defence and had merely cited the dates of pending complaints.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the Governor’s office in Karnataka HC to oppose CM Siddaramaiah’s plea. He argued that the sanction granted by the Governor came after a comprehensive examination of the case. He pointed out that, at the stage of approval under Section 17A, there is no requirement for natural justice principles, such as issuing a notice. Furthermore, he argued that the Governor acted independently as the Chief Minister was facing allegations, and the Governor was under no obligation to act on the advice of the Council of Ministers in this particular instance.

The complainants argued that the Governor’s sanction should not be seen as adversarial but as a measure to ensure transparency and integrity in public administration. They contended that approval under Section 17A was not mandatory but permissible, and it was sought appropriately in this case.

Background of MUDA Scam

On 10th July, a complaint was filed against Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and nine others for allegedly forging documents to claim compensation from the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Social activist Snehamayi Krishna has filed the complaint. It has accused Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathy, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy Devaraj, who claimed to be a landowner, and his family of ‘wrongdoings’.

It is pertinent to note that earlier, CM Siddaramaiah rejected the BJP’s demand for a CBI probe in this matter. In his defence, he demanded Rs 62 from MUDA claiming that it “usurped” his family’s 3.16-acre land for a development project. However, the Chief Minister’s demand soon sparked an outrage among the Bengaluru farmers. They accused the administration of following separate rules for the Chief Minister and state farmers. Additionally, they have also started to demand higher compensation from MUDA for acquiring their land for key development projects.

Major developments in the alleged MUDA scam and the ongoing controversy explained

Evidently, a major controversy over the reported allotment of 14 pricey plots to CM Siddaramaiah’s family in Mysuru has rocked the state politics of Karnataka. The Bharatiya Janata Party has been demanding a CBI probe in this matter. It has alleged irregularities and a scam in the land acquisition and allotment of an alternate site. 

According to the allegations, MUDA generally follows a 60:40 ratio in development projects meaning that it gives 40% of land back to the farmers in the same developed project. However, it is alleged that MUDA not only followed a 50:50 ratio in CM Siddaramaiah’s case but also allocated pricy plots at a different location.  

BJP has alleged that Siddaramaiah helped himself with the allotment of 14 plots in the upscale Vijayanagar locality in Mysuru in exchange for giving up 3 acres 16 guntas of land on the city outskirts to Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). It has charged CM’s family with accepting Rs 35 crore worth of plots in place of earlier decided compensation of Rs 3 lakh.

OpIndia’s detailed report on MUDA Scam can be checked here and here.