Karnataka High Court rejects plea to transfer MUDA scam probe against CM Siddaramaiah to CBI

The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected the plea to transfer the ongoing Lok Ayukta probe into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) [Snehamayi Krishna v. Union of India and ors]..Single-judge Justice M Nagaprasanna said that the Lok Ayukta, which is currently probing the case, does not suffer from any questionable independence "The office of the Lokayatha does not suffer from questionable independence. The insulation of the institution from external influences is already recognized by the apex court and Division Bench of this court. There is no malady of the kind that is projected by the apex court present in the case at hand to refer the matter for further investigation or reinvestigation to the hands of the CBI. It is not a panacea to the projected ill," the Court said.The Court further said there was no evidence to prove that the probe by Lok Ayukta was partial towards the Chief Minister."The material on record on its perusal nowhere indicates that the investigation conducted by the Lok Ayukta is partisan, lopsided or shoddy for this Court to refer the matter to the CBI for further investigation or reinvestigation," the single-judge made it clear.The Court, therefore dismissed the petition filed by activist Snehmayi Krishna, the original complainant in the MUDA case, seeking a transfer of the probe from the Lokayukta to the CBI..Background.The case concerns allegations of corruption in the grant of land by the MUDA to Siddaramaiah's wife, Parvathi.As per the complaint, Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi was ‘gifted’ a land plot measuring a little over three acres by her brother Mallikarjuna Swamy. The land was initially acquired, then de-notified, and bought by Swamy. It was developed by MUDA even though private individuals owned it.Swamy claimed that he bought the land in 2004 and gifted it to his sister. However, since the land was illegally developed by MUDA, Parvathi sought compensation. She allegedly received highly inflated compensation, including 14 developed alternate plots of land that were much higher in value than the original three acres, under a 50:50 scheme..On July 26, 2024, the Karnataka Governor granted sanction to file a corruption case against Siddaramaiah (being a public servant) in the matter, following private complaints made by activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna and Pradeep Kumar SP.Siddaramaiah challenged this move by approaching the High Court, where he argued that the MUDA's decision to compensate his wife was taken by it independently, without his interference or influence.However, Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed his plea challenging the grant of prosecution sanction on September 24, 2024. Subsequently, the Karnataka Lokayukta filed an FIR against Siddaramaiah and three others on charges of corruption, cheating and forgery.Later, Snehamayi Krishna filed the present petition for the transfer of the probe to the CBI..Arguments.Appearing for Krishna, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh had argued that the Lokayukta Police might not be able to conduct a fair probe and instil public confidence since it was a State authority and was now being tasked to probe the Chief Minister.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State, countered that Singh’s argument had no legal standing in the face of the statutory powers granted to the Lokayukta by Section 7 of the Act.Sibal said that Section 7 of the Lokayukta Act gives the Lokayukta the power to investigate public servants or government officials, including Chief Ministers.Besides, Sibal argued, a probe can be transferred to another agency only if either or all litigating parties believe the probe is mala fide. However, in the present case, the Lokayukta Police had submitted its report in a sealed cover to the special court. Neither the parties nor the High Court had any idea what the report said..Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for Siddaramaiah, also opposed Krishna’s plea on similar grounds.Singhvi recounted that Krishna, in his complaint, had earlier asked for a probe either by an independent agency such as the CBI or by the Lokayukta wing of the police.Until the day the Lokayukta registered the first information report (FIR) on September 27, 2024, the complainant had equal faith in both the Lokayukta and the CBI, Singhvi said,"But within an hour of the FIR, he had a change of heart and he now comes before this Court asking that his first prayer be ignored. How can that be done? He got what he wanted,” he said.Singhvi further said that if the High Court agrees with Krishna’s submissions, then the Lokayukta, despite its statutory powers, will never be able to investigate any public servant..Senior Advocates Ravi Varma Kumar and Aditya Sondhi, who appeared for Siddaramaiah and his brother-in-law Malikarjuna Swamy respectively, also opposed Krishna's petition.Kumar added that the Chief Minister did not believe that the CBI was an independent agency.Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave appeared for J Devaraju, the original owner of the land that was ultimately transferred to Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi..[Read Judgment]