MUDA case: Karnataka High Court reserves verdict on plea for CBI probe

Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court on Monday reserved its judgement in the petition seeking CBI probe into the allotment of the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) alternative sites to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathy. Justice M Nagaprasanna reserved his order after a marathon hearing.

The court has also extended the interim order passed on December 19, 2024 and extended the time granted to the Lokayukta police to file the final report till the pronouncement of judgement in the petition.

The petition is filed by one of the complainants Snehamayi Krishna contending that an impartial investigation is not possible since Siddaramaiah, being the Chief Minister of the state, wields immense power and influence over the state departments, especially the state investigating agencies such as the police authorities and the Karnataka Lokayukta police. He has also filed an interlocutory application (IA) seeking to add the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) as a party-respondent in the main petition.

At the hearing, senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for Snehamayi Krishna, submitted that an unison approach has been found in the cabinet note, in reply to the governor’s communication on sanction, the Chief Secretary’s note and the legal note. He cited Apex Court judgements in similar instances and said that it is a necessity in the present case to refer the probe to the CBI in order to meet all the standards as held by the top court.

On the other hand, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, submitted that when an accused cannot choose a particular agency for investigation, similarly an informant/complainant cannot choose or insist upon a particular agency for the investigation. He further stated that in the complaint, Snehamayi Krishna was agnostic on whether he intended CBI or Lokayukta to investigate the case. He said under such circumstances, the high court cannot put this case under the categories of ‘exceptional, ‘extraordinary’, ‘rarest of rare’, and ‘sparing’.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, appearing for the landowner Devaraju, claimed that several documents pertaining to the land in question had been suppressed by the petitioner. He claimed that the documents show that the order on denotification of his land was passed before the final acquisition process.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state government, submitted that Lokayukta Act empowers the institution to even investigate against the Chief Minister and it cannot be that the probe has to be transferred to a central agency just because a sitting chief minister is allegedly involved. “If that argument is right, then the Lokayukta Act which allows the investigation against the Chief Minister is to be held unconstitutional,” he said.