CM Siddaramaiah against MUDA case: LIVE UPDATES from Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court is hearing the plea filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah who has challenged the State Governor's decision to grant sanction to prosecute him in the alleged MUDA scam case.The MUDA scam case involves allegations of corruption and irregular allocation of land by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to Siddaramaiah's wife.Justice M Nagaprasannna is hearing the matter and had earlier granted interim relief to Siddaramaiah while his petition before the High Court is being heard.The matter was last heard on August 31, Saturday, when Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concluded submissions on behalf of the Governor of Karnataka, and Senior Advocates Maninder Singh and Prabhuling K Navadgi (among others) made submissions on behalf of the complainants (respondents) who had sought the prosecution sanction. The respondents are expected to finish their arguments today, after which Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi could make rejoinder submissions on behalf of Siddaramaiah. Track this page for live updates..Court notes that Senior Advocate Maninder Singh has already completed his arguments on Saturday for one of the complainants.Judge to lawyer in court: He said whatever is left in Kannada you will argue..Senior Advocate KG Raghavan: There are a few more facts that I would like to place on record ... If the Governor's sanction is set aside, the investigation will be scuttled. Nothing will remain. I will argue from the way I look at it..Raghavan: There is that anecdote where a lawyer asks for an adjournment saying he has forgotten his spectacles. The judge says take mine. The lawyer takes it but still asks for any adjournment. Judge asks why? He says because now I am looking at this from your point of view..Raghavan: In the instant case, if the sanctioning authority says there is something that needs to be inquired into, the philosophy is to have purity in public administration. That is the paramount object of the Prevention of Corruption Act..Raghavan: It is really not in the nature of lis between the petitioner and anybody else. It is in the interest of purity of public administration ... There is an element of public interest. .Raghavan: What is the best way of restoring eroded public confidence in administration? Justice Nagaprasanna: Where has it eroded? Raghavan: I'll show it to my Lords. The very fact that a commission of inquiry was constituted ... It shows that there is something to be inquired into ... That is only to answer the question of erosion of public confidence. And the entire investigation is against persons holding public office..Raghavan: Maybe at the end of it, everyone will be given a clean chit. But why scuttle it at this stage? At this point of time, would your Lordships want the cloud on the purity of public administration to remain? In matters of this kind, the Courts must lean towards getting the matters inquired. .Raghavan: From 1996 to 99, the petitioner was the deputy chief minister. 2004 to 2005; he was again the deputy CM. 2013 to 2018, first stint as CM and thereafter as CM, his second stint is from May 2023..Raghavan: On August 30, 1997 the original owner of the land, one Devaraju sought de-notificatuon of the land. On March 30, an award was passed and amount was deposited with the arevenie treasury. So, with that the acquisition is over. Then in 18.5.1998, there is another denotification notice. Court: Was this the only land denotified? Raghavan: Yes, only this land. In 2004, Devaraju sold this land to PM Mallikarjun (Siddaramaiah 's brother-in-law)..Court: Where is the de-notification order? Raghavan: We don't have it but it is the only property that has been denotified. But where is the question of this notification when the property is vested?.Raghavan: This itself indicates that something has to be looked into .. I fail to understand why this case has been elevated to taking your Lordship's time again and again?.Raghavan: If there was no PC Act and it had come to Court under 482, your Lordships would not have interfered and said look, allegations are there, there are grey areas.. Let them be examined..Court: You said there is a needle of suspicion. Is it a needle in a haystack situation?Raghavan: No. Because the issue here is not trivial. it needs to be examined..Raghavan: In 2003, despite de-notification, MUDA has already developed allotted sites to various persons. Then comes Devaraju. He says, I am the owner of the plot and he sells it to Mallikarjun, the petitioner's brother-in-law. And then there is an order of conversion and then there is a gift in favour of his sister. it is on the basis of these documents that the sister now comes and says please give me compensation..Raghavan: If an ordinary person had come to make a representation like this? .Justice Nagaprasanna: Did anyone else come forward for compensation? Raghavan: No. But if an ordinary citizen had come, what would the authorities' reaction be? They would have asked them to prove their title. But here, nothing was asked, rules were amended, and compensation was paid for 50 per cent of the extent of land..Raghavan: Where is the question of denotification if the property vested with the Government?.Raghavan: Even if we were to keep that aside, with respect to which Rule will you take a decision on the compensation application made in 2015? It must be on the 60:40 Rule that was applicable in 2003-2009. How was the 50: 50 rule applied that came into effect in 2015? Court: Are you conceding to the applicability of the 60:40 Rule? Raghavan: No. Also, my accepting anything does not matter. Which is the provision under which they can give these 14 sites and give compensation under the 50 : 50 Rule?Raghavan: How many times do you overlook? Your Lordships have said that if multiple occasions of overlooking facts then there is a ground for malafide..Raghavan: It is said that property is worth ₹3.24 lakh, and what is the value at which the 14 sites are given? No application of mind by authorities! You will exchange cheese for chalk? That is what is being done, that is the allegation. You gave cheese for chalk! You have given them valuable property for property that is very much less in value than the property given. It may be right or wrong but-Justice Nagaprasanna: -but it should be enquired into?Raghavan: That's the point!.Raghavan: Every time, we are told the same thing. And then we are told that 'Brutus is an honourable man.' That is what Mark Antony said at the funeral oration of Julius Caesar. Well, let it be inquired into. Justice Prasanna: Yes, he is an honourable man ... Mark Antony said that carrying the body of Ceasar. You're carrying that statement further, on Brutus. Not that he loved Caesar less, but that he loved Rome more..Raghavan: I am not getting into right and wrong. The point is that undue favour was shown and it needs to be inquired into..Raghavan: All that happens when the petitioner was the Chief Minister..Raghavan: Resolutions passed in 2017 are the basis of this order (land allotment and compensation). This is the link ... the vital link between the petitioner and what we are complaining about..Raghavan: The petitioner first approached the jurisdictional police, then the Lokayukta. And then the special court on the question of whether a sanction is required for the CM's prosecution. That was reserved for orders..Justice Nagaprasanna: That was reserved for orders. It is now preserved for orders..Raghavan reads from the impugned order. The Governor said there are two versions therefore I will get it inquired into. This much of application of mind is more than enough. Justice Nagaprasanna: You are reading from the order but the Solicitor General has produced the entire file. The submission of not even a semblance travelled to abundance after the original file was placed. Raghavan: Impugned order on the face of it bears application of mind..Raghavan: Even on the (Governor's) order, it cannot be said there was non-application of mind. Take the order on the face of it. If anything more was said in the order, the allegation would have been 'you (Governor) have made up your mind one way or another.' If you do, you're damned; you don't (also), you're damned. There is a very thin line to be drawn on whether there is consideration or not..Raghavan: For sanction only a prima facie case is required. Direction is on a higher pedestal than sanction. This is neither a sanction, nor a direction. It is an approval. The bottom of the pyramid..Raghavan cites Justice Nagaprasanna's previous judgements. Says a public servant's conduct has to be meticulous. Even if there is a chance of a miniscule role played by a public servant in any wrongdoing, the PC Act will apply..Raghavan: Did you (Siddaramaiah) play any role in that Regulation and decision? That needs to be looked into. And even if that role is miniscule, it has to be investigated..Raghavan: There are two issues. There is absence of sanction and invalidity of sanction. Can question of invalidity of sanction be taken up before the special court?Judge: Now issue is, sanction is accorded by Constitutional authority. The validity of that sanction - whether it bears application of mind, whether it is needed or otherwise - is only by this Court. The Court of sessions cannot sit and scrutinise what the Governor has said, whether he has applied his mind, whether he has done this - no. This Court (High Court) is..Justice Nagaprasanna: You (Raghavan) began the submission by saying that this is the Governor's sanction, it is a high functionary's sanction. It is not like a Tehsildar issuing a sanction. Same thing applies here also.Raghavan says that submission was made to refer to the extent of the examination..Raghavan: I am not saying the Constitutional Court cannot (examine Governor's sanction)-Justice Nagaprasanna: There is nothing that this Court cannot. Anything before this Court is maintainability - whether it is entertainable or not (is another question), it is the discretion of the Court..Raghavan argues that there is no natural justice requirement at the stage of Section 17 of PC Act. Raghavan: Fact that complaint by Respondent 4 was not supplied to petitioner does not vitiate the (Governor's) order ... There is an interesting book on fraud. (It says) "... It is not easy to give a definition of what constitutes fraud ... Courts have always avoiding hampering themselves... Fraud is infinite in variety. The fertility of man's invention in devising new schemes of fraud is so great that courts have always declined to define it ... reserving to themselves to duel with it in whatever form in presents."Judge: Fraud has many hues and forms. Every case that comes up has a different hue. .Raghavan: Fraud is never committed in daylight, it is always done under cover. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the court to say, 'how do I read between the lines of an action to find out if there is fraud.' It is a very difficult exercise.Senior Advocate Raghavan concludes..Justice Nagaprasanna: All the respondents have completed. When is Singhvi sir, completing? Singhvi: After the submissions of the AG because there is a whole cabinet note and AG note that he alone can argue. Justice Nagaprasanna asks the AG to finish his arguments on September 5. Singhvi asks for another working Saturday..Senior Advocate AM Singhvi appears for Siddaramaiah, says that he may be allowed to make rejoinder submissions on September 12, after the Advocate General finishes submissions on September 9..Nagaprasanna J: This issue shouldn't stretch too much. We have vacations from October 1. Volumes after volumes have given. We have stalled the proceedings there, it is no right. .Court records Advocate General's request for a week's time to make submissions. Matter listed on September 9, 2.30 PM. Interim order staying trial court proceedings to continue. .Justice Nagaprasanna: No further adjournments. 12th we will finish it.Hearing for the day ends. Interim order extended until next hearing.

CM Siddaramaiah against MUDA case: LIVE UPDATES from Karnataka High Court

Related Stories