Read Time: 08 minutes
The court held that CBI investigation was not warranted as there was no evidence indicating bias in the Lokayukta’s investigation against the CM
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the transfer of the Lokayukta investigation into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The court, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, delivering the verdict, held “Lokayukta to be an independent agency, competent to investigate into the allegations against high functionaries, including the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka.”
“If the investigation agency is not independent then the right to life and liberty guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 is threatened,” the court emphasised, permitting the Lokayukta probe against CM Siddaramaiah to continue.
The court’s observation came while hearing the case concerning allegations of corruption in the allotment of land by MUDA to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi. As per the complaint, Parvathi was gifted over three acres of land by her brother Mallikarjuna Swamy. The land, initially acquired by MUDA, was later de-notified and subsequently purchased by Swamy. Despite its private ownership, MUDA allegedly developed the land. Swamy claimed to have purchased the land in 2004 and later gifted it to Parvathi. However, since MUDA had illegally developed it, Parvathi sought compensation, which she allegedly received in an inflated manner—obtaining 14 alternate plots with significantly higher market value under a 50:50 compensation scheme.
On July 26, 2024, the Karnataka Governor granted sanction to prosecute Siddaramaiah following complaints from activists T.J. Abraham, Snehamayi Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar S.P. Siddaramaiah challenged this sanction before the High Court, arguing that MUDA’s decision to compensate his wife was independent and uninfluenced by him.
However, on September 24, 2024, Justice Nagaprasanna dismissed his plea, upholding the sanction. Subsequently, the Karnataka Lokayukta registered an FIR against Siddaramaiah and three others on allegations of corruption, cheating, and forgery.
Following the Lokayukta probe, petitioner Snehamayi Krishna moved the present plea, seeking to transfer the investigation to the CBI. Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, representing Krishna, argued that since the Lokayukta is a State authority, it may not be able to conduct an impartial probe against the sitting Chief Minister.
Countering this, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, maintained that Lokayukta is empowered under Section 7 of the Lokayukta Act to investigate public servants, including Chief Ministers. It was further contended that an investigation could only be transferred to another agency if mala fide intent is demonstrated.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Siddaramaiah, also opposed the petition, emphasising that the complainant had initially requested an investigation either by the CBI or the Lokayukta. “The complainant cannot play hide and seek by choosing a particular forum while registering the complaint and immediately come to this Court and seek investigation by another forum when the investigation is yet to get complete or even commence,” Singhvi argued.
Senior Advocates Ravi Varma Kumar and Aditya Sondhi, representing Siddaramaiah and Mallikarjuna Swamy, respectively, also opposed the petition. Additionally, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave represented J. Devaraju, the original owner of the disputed land.
The court stated, “There is absolutely no chance for vindictive action at the instance of political opponent against the representatives of the people. Same is the position in respect of the bureaucrats who take an independent decision in the larger public interest.”
“The office of the Lokayukta does not suffer from questionable independence. The insulation of the institution from external influences is already recognized by the Apex Court and a Division Bench of this Court. There is no malady of the kind projected by the petitioner that warrants a transfer to the CBI. It is not a panacea to the projected ill," the court further observed.
Dismissing the petition, the court held, “The material on record, on its perusal, nowhere indicates that the investigation conducted by the Lokayukta is partisan, lopsided or shoddy for reference to the CBI for further investigation or re-investigation.”
Cause Title: Snehamayi Krishna v Union of India and ors. [WP No.27484 OF 2024 (GM - RES)]
Please Login or Register
