Karnataka: High Court reserves order on plea to transfer Muda case to CBI
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal defended the Lokayukta’s powers under Section 7 of the Lokayukta Act, allowing it to investigate public servants, including the CM.
The Karnataka high court on Monday reserved its judgment on a plea seeking the transfer of the Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda) site allotment case investigation to an independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The case, which involves chief minister Siddaramaiah, his wife Parvathi B M, his brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, and others, has attracted significant attention due to the allegations of irregularities in land allotment.
The petitioners, led by activist Snehmayi Krishna, argued that the Lokayukta police, currently investigating the case, might not be able to conduct an impartial probe since the chief minister, their superior, is one of the accused. Krishna sought the court’s intervention to transfer the case to a central agency, claiming that only an independent probe could ensure transparency and public confidence.
“This investigation requires independence to avoid any perception of bias, especially given the stature of the accused,” Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Krishna, argued.
Countering the plea, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the Karnataka government, defended the Lokayukta’s statutory powers under Section 7 of the Lokayukta Act, which authorises it to investigate public servants, including the CM. Sibal dismissed the petitioners’ claims as speculative, arguing that a transfer to the CBI or any other agency could only be justified if there was clear evidence of mala fide intent.
“A probe can be transferred to another agency only if there is evidence of bias or misconduct. Without knowing the contents of the Lokayukta’s sealed report, it is baseless to assume the investigation is unfair,” Sibal said. He emphasised that the high court cannot suo motu transfer an investigation based solely on apprehensions without substantive proof.
Karnataka Lokayukta on Monday submitted the investigation report in connection with the Muda land allotment case to the high court Dharwad bench. Mysuru Lokayukta superintendent of police TJ Udesh submitted the report in a sealed cover to the court. The court had earlier directed the Lokayukta to submit the report without fail in this regard. The report included statements from over 25 witnesses recorded under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sibal also questioned the petitioners’ sudden shift in stance. “The complainant initially wanted the Lokayukta to investigate and even trusted the CBI. But within an hour of the FIR being registered, their faith in the Lokayukta disappeared. How can such a change in position be justified?” he asked.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, reinforced Sibal’s argument, cautioning that granting the plea would set a dangerous precedent. “If the high court accepts this submission, the Lokayukta’s authority to investigate public servants will be undermined, rendering it ineffective in future cases,” Singhvi warned.
The case revolves around allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Parvathi B M in an upscale area of Mysuru under MUDA’s 50:50 scheme, which provides landowners with 50% of developed land in exchange for land acquired for residential layouts. Petitioners alleged that Parvathi did not possess legal title to the 3.16 acres of land in question, located in Kasare village, Mysuru taluk, making the allotment illegal.
Senior counsel Dushyant Dave, representing J Devaraju, original owner of the disputed land, argued that his client was unfairly drawn into a political controversy. “At the age of 80, my client is now entangled in a case where he has been subjected to adverse observations without being given an opportunity to be heard,” Dave said.
Meanwhile, senior advocates Ravi Varma Kumar and Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Siddaramaiah’s wife and brother-in-law, opposed the transfer petition, arguing that the Lokayukta had statutory powers to conduct the investigation impartially.
After hearing all arguments, the HC reserved its judgment, stating that the interim relief granted to the accused would remain in effect until the final decision is pronounced.