Karnataka High Court Refuses To Transfer Probe In MUDA Case Allegedly Involving CM Siddaramaiah To CBI

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 7) refused to transfer the investigation by the Lokayukta police into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) "scam" which is stated to involve Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, to the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "The material on record does not indicate that investigation conducted by Lokayukta is partisan or lood sidedor shoddy for this court to refer the matter to CBI for further investigation or reinvestigation. Petition is dismissed."

The court had reserved its verdict last month after hearing all the parties.

The parties had raised the following contentions-

An accused or suspect cannot say which agency can investigate

Senior Advocate Maninder Singh appearing for petitioner Snehamayi Krishna argued that the prospective accused has no right to be heard at this stage. An accused or suspect accused cannot say which investigating agency should investigate, he said.

He submitted that in the earlier proceedings (Challenge to Governor's sanction by Siddaramaiah) Identical notes of three authorities were produced earlier, Cabinet, Chief Secretary and Legal Dept. There was a unison approach to defend the Chief Minister.

He referred to various Supreme Court judgments and said “Whether it is absolutely necessary to meet the needs of fair investigation where there are high functionaries involved, to meet public interest as laid down by the Supreme Court it is completely applicable in this case. If the facts are speaking for themselves, nobody is casting aspersions on investigation but is it likely to result in fairness which is fundamental requirement of investigation and for the trial. Then the court should not hesitate for transferring to independent investigations. If there is a reasonable apprehension that fair investigation will not take place then the court can exercise its discretion”.

“The facts of my case and people involved and state functionaries, there is no possibility of any fairness, they will be dictated to put everything under carpet. Thus, the investigation be referred to the CBI, so that cause of justice is met with,” he added.

Plea filed 1 hour after Lokayukta police registered FIR, petitioner's conduct to be looked at

Meanwhile Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave appearing for the original landowner Devaraju J, from whom the brother-in-law of Siddaramiah had purchased the property said, “The present petition is to be dismissed. The citations made are not applicable to the present case. The present petition is an abuse of process of law”.

Raising the ground of delay in filing the complaint Dave said, “The petitioner does not say that he digs out documents which are 10 years old and approaches the court now in the year 2024. Thus there is a delay and if there is a delay then it goes to the root cause of the PIL. He relies on public documents.”

"Mr Singh today is pursuing the court that there is a serious case of corruption and it be transferred to CBI. His client made a statement on oath that the case is to be tried before Lokayukta court and Lokayukta Police. Now he wants it to be investigated by the CBI. He has come after the lordship's judgment (Upholding Governors sanction). Lordships should not waste precious judicial time and throw him out saying you have chosen a remedy and go there,” he added.

To a query raised by the court whether the petition was filed on the same day the FIR was registered by the Lokayukta police on the direction of the court Dave informed that the petition was filed on September 27, 2024, the day the FIR was filed.

He further said “How is it that within one hour after registration of FIR that he (petitioner) can say Lokayukta cannot investigate, and it should be transferred to CBI. The law of acquiescence applies. His conduct is to be looked into.”

Seeking dismissal of the petition he argued “He is enjoying the fruit of investigation being ordered by the Lokayukta and now comes and says investigation should be by CBI. Today he (petitioner) is stifling the investigation and somehow wants to convict these people”.

Probe is transferred only after hearing parties, in this case no one knows what has happened

Meanwhile Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the state government apprised the court about the scenarios in which the high court can order transfer of investigation in a case to an independent agency or CBI. He said “In every case where investigation is tainted or malafide both parties are aware of the investigation carried on and only after hearing both parties the court says it needs to be transferred or not. In this case nobody knows what has happened.”

He submitted the entire basis of the petitioner's arguments is that CM is involved so the state cannot investigate. Sibal said “If that is right then the Lokayukta act which directed investigation against CM has to be declared unconstitutional.”

If Lokayukta is claimed to be tainted as its under State's control, then can say same for CBI as it is under Centre

He added “The statute says the Chief Minister can also be investigated. Not only investigated but convicted in the past. Somewhat ingenious arguments which cannot stand the test of law are being made. This case throws up issues which have never arisen. There is no procedure known to law under which lordships can refer the case to CBI. Magistrate can agree or disagree and say carry out further investigation. This will have to go there milord”.

Finally he said “If the argument is that Lokayukta is tainted, because it is under the control of the State government I can say that CBI is also the same as it is under the Central Government. Then where do we go? The question that arises in this case, is not about institutional independence, but whether the case is investigated independently?"

If accused can't choose probe agency how can complainant ask for it

Meanwhile Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appearing for CM Siddaramaiah argued that “He (petitioner) has got what he wanted, he applied for sanction and he got it. It is in the context that he said 'I am ok with Lokayukta doing the investigation'. The matter filed today has relied upon the conclusion of the lordships in that matter (order upholding sanction). Lordships observations are a matter of appeal. It is in this context that with such reliance on my appeal which raises several important issues. My learned friend is relying on finding of lordships order. That is in appeal”.

He urged the court to consider the outcome if the petitioner tries to short-circuit the process and if the appeal is allowed or partly allowed. Then it will affect the transfer which is affected, he said.

Emphasising that no irregularity or illegality is being shown by the petition to have been committed post the order of the court upholding sanction order. He said, “Something must be shown. There is no allegation. Then lordships transfer the case to CBI then it will be only because he is the Chief Minister.”

He added, “Just like an accused is not allowed to choose the investigating agency, how can the complainant ask for a particular agency”.

Stating that prayer for transfer of case should not be granted on mere asking by the petitioner Singhvi said “Lordships have not been told of an exceptional circumstance while seeking transfer of investigation. There is no principle which says automatically when a Chief Minister is involved, investigation is to be transferred”.

Singhvi concluded by stating that the court should not permit such a "distorted interpretation because the case has political overtones”.

Ground for taking out probe from Lokayukta is political

At this stage Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar appearing for Paravathy, wife of Chief Minister, argued that finding of her title as recorded in the courts order to the disputed land have been recorded adversely against me. “Therefore I appeal to exercise suo-motu power, and recall all the findings against me”.

He thereafter said, "CBI directly comes under Prime Minister's office, he has declared that it is his intention to make India Congress Mukth Bharat. The only ground they want to take out investigation from Lokayukta is political. CBI is not independent".

Meanwhile Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi appearing for Mallikarjuna Swamy, brother-in-law of Siddaramaiah submitted that hypothetical submission is made by complainant that investigation would not be an impartial investigation.

"In essence lordships are told to arrive at a finding that Lokayukta is not an independent investigation agency. Petitioner is seeking an in-rem declaration relief that the moment a high functionary is involved, Chief Minster an accused investigation cannot be entrusted to the Lokayukta,” Sondhi said. He further submitted that the petition was prematurely filed.

After hearing all the parties the court reserved its verdict.

Case Title: Snehamayi Krishna AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WP 27484/2024

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 48