E-Paper
HC clears Guv’s nod to probe CM in land case
Karnataka HC rejects CM Siddaramaiah's plea against governor's sanction for his prosecution over alleged land allotment irregularities, marking a setback.
The Karnataka high court on Tuesday rejected chief minister Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s decision to permit his prosecution in connection with a land allotment case involving the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) in a move that is a significant setback for the chief minister as well as his Congress party. The case involves allegations of irregularities in a 2020 land allotment to Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi and Siddaramaiah is expected to appeal the decision.
Justice M Nagaprasanna, who delivered the verdict, upheld the governor’s decision, explaining that under certain exceptional conditions, the governor can act independently, as per the provisions of the Constitution. “The governor under normal circumstances has to act on the aid and advice of the council of ministers as under Article 163 of the Constitution but can take independent decisions if exceptional circumstances arise. The present case projects one such exception,” the court observed.
The petition against the chief minister was filed by activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna and Pradeep Kumar SP, who alleged that Parvathi received 14 developed plots as compensation for a three-acre plot of land, which they claim was excessive under MUDA’s 50:50 scheme. On August 16, the governor granted sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, enabling the prosecution of Siddaramaiah in connection with the alleged offences mentioned in the petition.
“The approval under 17A is mandatory in the fact situation. It nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complainant under 200 or 223 of BNSS. It is the duty of the complainants to seek such approval,” the court clarified, rejecting the government’s argument that sanction for prosecution should only be requested by a police officer, not a private party.
The court further noted that any interim orders issued concerning the case were no longer valid. “I can’t stay my own order. Any interim relief subsisting shall stand dissolved,” justice Nagaprasanna said. A lower court in Bengaluru is currently hearing a private complaint seeking an FIR against Siddaramaiah, but the case had been adjourned pending the high court’s decision.
Siddaramaiah, responding to the verdict, denied the allegations and labelled the case as politically motivated. “This is a fight against the revenge politics of the BJP and JD(S). I have faith in the court and will continue this judicial struggle,” he said, adding that he plans to consult legal experts regarding the legitimacy of the investigation.
The chief minister also mentioned that he has the backing of Congress MLAs and party leaders.
The complainants welcomed the court’s decision. TJ Abraham expressed satisfaction, stating, “The order came exactly as we had hoped. Siddaramaiah’s petition has been rightly dismissed… Let him challenge in the division bench. He will use his legal rights. Since he is moving the (high court’s) division bench, we are filing a caveat there.”
Snehamai Krishna claimed that the complainants have strong documentary evidence against the chief minister.
The opposition, particularly the BJP, has called for Siddaramaiah’s resignation in light of the court’s ruling. “The court has upheld the Governor’s decision to grant permission for prosecution and conducting a probe into the allegations of irregularities involving the Chief Minister’s family. It is now clear that prima facie a case has been made out against the Chief Minister. Siddaramaiah should uphold the dignity of his post by immediately resigning on moral grounds,” BJP state president BY Vijayendra remarked.
The case pertains to a land deal when a 3.16 acre land plot was gifted to Parvathi by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy in 2010. MUDA illegally developed the land between 2011-13, following which Parvathi , in 2014, sought compensation. In 2017 MUDA agreed to compensate her and in 2022, she was given 14 plots. The complainants argue were far more valuable than the original land, under MUDA’s 50:50 scheme. After the controversy came to light, Siddaramiah offered to return the 14 plots if his wife was given ₹62 crore as compensation.
The MUDA 50:50 scheme, announced in 2016, entailed offering 50% of the developed sites as compensation to the original land owners. The controversial scheme was scrapped in 2023.
