Supreme Court Stays Karnataka HC Order Impleading Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy In Contempt Case

The Supreme Court today(July 17) issued notice in a special leave petition filed by JD(S) MP HD Kumaraswamy (now a Union Minister) against the Karnataka High Court's order wherein the high court issued notice in the ongoing contempt proceedings against the Union Minister. The high court's order of April 17, which impleaded him as a party, has also been kept in abeyance. 

The issue arises out of a writ petition filed by Samaj Parivartana before the High Court alleging large-scale encroachment of land by the Union Minister and his family. It sought inquiry into the 2011 Lokayukta's interlocutory report against illegal encroachment of government lands in Kethaganahalli village, Bidadi. Thereafter, based on the statement by the Advocate General of the State that they will act upon the Lokayukta's report, the high court closed the matter on January 14, 2020. Subsequently, citing jurisdictional restraint, the proceedings before the Lokayukta were also closed in 2021.

The State had formed a special investigation team of senior officials and found the allegations of encroachment prima facie true. Kumaraswamy has denied the allegations of encroaching on the said land and alleged a conspiracy initiated by the Congress Government.

Thereafter, a contempt was filed and admitted against the authorities by the high court, over alleged failure to comply with the Lokayukta's order ordering that the illegally encroached lands in Kethaganahalli village should be reclaimed by the Government.

 In the ongoing proceedings, the eviction notices were issued against the Union Minister, who approached the Supreme Court stating that despite not being a party to the contempt proceedings, eviction notices were issued and he is at risk of being evicted. 

On March 28, the Supreme Court disposed of his plea and asked him to approach the high court, pursuant to which the Union Minister filed an application clarifying that eviction notices should not be issued to him as he has been dropped from the proceedings. Instead, as he alleges in the present SLP, the high court made him a party to the ongoing proceedings.

Appearing before a bench comprising Justices Pankaj Mithal and PB Varale, Senior Advocate Aryaman Sundaram submitted that despite the Supreme Court's order "dropping" him before the case, the High Court has made him an accused. Sundaram also questioned the ongoing contempt proceedings.

Sundaram said: "High Court now makes me a respondent. See the rules of contempt, there are only two parties to the contempt-petitioner and the accused. I have been made accused again. Your lordship grants me leave and say, bring it to the notice of the court that I am not a party."

Whereas, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for Samaj Parivartana, refuted this claim and clarified that the Supreme Court's order was limited to asking him to approach the High Court and get impleaded. However, Justice Mithal clarified that the Court "never said that". He said: "We permitted the petitioner to bring it to the notice of the high court that the petitioner has been deleted from the contempt proceedings..."

Justice Mithal then asked Bhushan how the contempt proceedings were going on when Lokayukta had closed the matter. Bhushan clarified that the matter was closed because of jurisdictional constraints. 

Nevertheless, Bhushan submitted that even if the petitioner has been wrongly impleaded, he is entitled to put his grievances before the High Court, and there is no reason to approach this court. But Justice Mithal questioned: "How are you maintaining the contempt proceedings?...The Advocate General makes a statement and on the basis, the High Court passed an order let the order such and such of the Lokayukta be complied with. That order of the Lokayukta ceased to exist and the matter has been closed."

The Court issuing notice, ordered: "It is submitted that contempt proceedings are drawn before the High Court for the disobedience of order dated 14 January, 2020, passed by the division bench of the High Court in writ petition 49/2020. The above order in the writ petition was passed by the High Court on the basis of the statement by the Additional Advocate General wherein he stated that the State will comply with the order dated 5 August, 2014, passed by the Karnataka Lokayukta within a period of three weeks. It is submitted that the aforesaid order of Lokayuta was a detailed order but was interlocutory in nature and finally, the Lokayukta had closed the proceedings wide order dated 3.3.21 and therefore, the order of Lokayukta does not have any independent existence and stands quashed. In such a situation, the proceedings for contempt can't go on.

The second submission is, that at the relevant time, the petitioner was not a party to the contempt proceedings but even then, the actions were taken against them for eviction. Therefore, this court wide order dated 28.5.25 disposed of the SLP preferred by the petitioner with liberty to bring to the notice of the high court that he has been deleted from the contempt proceedings.  In pursuance thereof, the petitioner made an application to the court for which the contempt court has directed for the impleaded of the petitioner. The submission is, he has not filed for impleadment but has brought it to the notice of the court as directed by this court. Issue notice...Response to the petition within four weeks...In the meanwhile, the effect and operation of impugned order dated 17 April 2025 remain in abeyance."

Case Details: H.D. KUMARASWAMY Vs SAMAJ PARIVARTANA SAMUDAYA SPS|SLP(C) No. 14420/2025

Appearances: Senior Advocate Mr. C.A. Sundaram appeared on behalf of Mr. Kumaraswamy, assisted by Mr. Balaji Srinivasan (Advocate-on-Record) and Mr. Nishanth A.V.

Samaj Parivartana, the complainant in the contempt case before the Karnataka High Court, was represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Prashant Bhushan