Petition for Governor's nod to prosecute CM Siddaramiah is copy-paste: AG tells Karnataka HC

The petition seeking directions for the Governor to grant sanction to prosecute Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in a corruption case has been copy-pasted from an earlier complaint on the same issue, Karnataka Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty told the Karnataka High Court on Friday.

The matter was briefly heard by a Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha today, when counsel representing the petitioner, MP Venugopal, sought more time to make arguments.

The Advocate General then urged the Court to ask the petitioner to also address concerns that the petition was copied verbatim from a private complaint filed by activist Ramamurthy Gowda on the same issue.

“This is a copy-paste of a PCR (private complaint register), word to word, filed against the same respondents (Siddaramaiah and mineral companies). If your lordship compares from para 3 onwards of the private complaint with this writ petition, it is identical, including the paragraph number. After, in pencil, they have corrected in the writ petition.. Only complainant has changed here (in the petition). Respondents and pleadings are identical. Let him come and answer on the next date," AG Shetty told the Court.

The petitioner's counsel assured that he will answer the allegation when the matter is heard next.

The Court recorded the submissions and posted the case for further hearing on April 17.

The plea before the Court calls for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Siddaramaiah and others into allegations that mining leases were illegally renewed during his tenure.

It further seeks directions to the Karnataka Lokayukta to submit a report in the matter, and for the cancellation of mining leases granted to certain companies, on allegations that these leases were given in violation of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.

The plea also seeks directions for the recovery of alleged financial losses tied to such mining lease renewals.

Notably, the plea filed in 2025 was earlier dismissed for default after no one appeared for the petitioner during a hearing.

However, an application to restore the case was later allowed by the Court in December 2025.