Karnataka HC Dismisses Siddaramaiah’s Plea Challenging Governor’s Sanction in MUDA Case

Karnataka HC Dismisses Siddaramaiah’s Plea Challenging Governor’s Sanction in MUDA Case

The plea of Mr. Siddaramaiah, Karnataka’s leader, was turned down by judges at a hearing on Tuesday. He had claimed Mr. Thaawarchand Gehlot acted unlawfully in permitting an inquiry into deals involving a local property agency. Justice M. Nagaprasanna stated further consideration of the matter was required before any final decisions could be reached: “We must investigate these assertions more thoroughly—so sorry, we cannot give you what you want.”

The court also noted there was no indication the Governor had failed to take everything onboard when reaching his decision independently (meaning not swayed by anyone else’s views or outside pressures like political ones)—”i.e.,, order does not suggest either haste or absentmindedness.”

On September 12, after completing hearings, the High Court said that its decision would be made at a later date. It also extended an order from August 19, which had instructed a lower court to stop proceedings related to the case—which involves public officials who have been elected—until there has been a judgment from higher up.

The MUDA Case: Key Details

Allegations have surfaced in the case of Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allocations involving BM Parvathi, wife of Siddaramaiah. It is alleged that she was allocated compensatory sites in a prime location in Mysuru, which reportedly had a higher value than the land acquired by MUDA for development purposes.

According to a 50:50 scheme, MUDA provides 50% of developed land back to landowners who give up undeveloped plots, but critics such as opposition politicians and activists say there is no evidence Parvathi ever owned the 3.16 acres involved in this deal.

The Legal Proceedings

Governor Gehlot authorized an inquiry on August 16 under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita’s Section 218 as well as the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988’s Section 17A, after grievances lodged by complainants TJ Abraham, Pradeep Kumar SP, and Snehamayi Krishna. In reply, Siddaramaiah moved the High Court three days later, contending that not enough thought had been applied before the Governor arrived at his decision, meaning what checks-and-balances rules both statutory (legal) and constitutional had been violated.

The Chief Minister pointed out in her/his petition challenging this move by The Government that according to Article 163 no less!—recall how our constitution insists there should always be advice coming from the council of-ministers aka cabinet, for any such decisions taken by him/her?? ensely blanking/unaware, so I simply went along with others around me whose opinions I respect immensely: Mainly because they seemed convinced something or another shady must have gone down here…

Also Read: BJP Slams INDIA Bloc as ‘Balatkari Bachao Alliance’ Over Badlapur Encounter Controversy

Legal Representation

During the legal proceedings, well-known individuals from each party were present. For Siddaramaiah, senior lawyers Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Professor Ravivarma Kumar were there, whereas Tushar Mehta (the Solicitor-General of India) represented the Governor, with input from Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty.

On the other side, Maninder Singh and four other top-ranking advocates stood up too (Prabhuling K Navadgi, Lakshmi Iyengar, Ranganath Reddy, and KG Raghavan). It’s an important moment, as this ruling could now allow more investigations into allegations about allotments at MUDA sites.