MUDA case: Karnataka High Court dismisses Siddaramaiah’s plea
Judge upholds Governor’s nod for investigation against Siddaramaiah; case pertains to allegation of illegalities in allotment of 14 sites worth ₹56 crore to his wife Parvathi by Mysuru Urban Development Authority
by Krishnaprasad · The HinduIn a major setback to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday (September 24, 2024) upheld the Governor’s action of grating permission to conduct an investigation against him on the allegation of illegalities in allotment of 14 sites worth ₹56 crore to his wife Parvathi by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
Also, the court gave the green signal for ordering a probe against him by vacating its interim order granted on August 19 directing a special court in Bengaluru to defer the decision on the complaints against Mr. Siddaramaiah. It also rejected a plea to stay Tuesday’s verdict to enable Mr. Siddaramaiah to appeal against it.
Watch | What is the MUDA scam?
Justice M. Nagaprasanna delivered the verdict while dismissing Mr. Siddaramaiah’s petition challenging the legality of the Governor’s August 16 order of granting approval for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988.
‘Undoubtedly needs probe’
Referring to the allegations, the court said it “undoubtedly requires an investigation into the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside, but the wife of Mr. Siddaramaiah.”
On the Governor’s power, the High Court said the Governor, in the normal circumstances, had to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as per Article 163 of the Constitution, “but can take independent decision in exceptional circumstances, and the present case is one such exception... No fault can be found in the action of the Governor exercising independent discretion.”
Rejecting Mr. Siddaramaiah’s contention that the approval for investigation has to be taken only by the police officer and not by any private individuals, the court said “Section 17A nowhere requires a police officer to seek approval in a private complaint registered under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, against a public servant for offences punishable under the provisions of the Act.”
Related Stories
“It is the duty of the complainant to seek such approval” in case of a private complaint lodged before the competent courts, the court said. “The Gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from want of application of mind,” the High Court said, rejecting Mr. Siddaramaiah’s claim that the Governor had not applied his mind in granting permission for investigation.
‘Not mandatory’
The court also made it clear that grant of an opportunity of hearing or issuing a show-cause notice prior to grant of approval for investigation under Section 17A is not mandatory. However, if the competent authority [Governor in this case] chooses to do so, it is open to it, the judge said.
It was argued on behalf of Mr. Siddaramaiah that the Governor had issued notice to him only on the complaint filed by Abraham T.J, and not on the two other complaints, filed by Snehamayi Krishna and Pradeep Kumar S.P.
The court also clarified that the Governor’s order is read to be restrictive to an approval for investigation under Section 17A and not an order granting sanction for prosecution under Section 218 of the BNSS as it was clarified on behalf of the Governor that order has to be contained only for investigation under Section 17A.
Published - September 24, 2024 01:19 pm IST