MUDA case: Governor could not have granted approval for probe against Siddaramaiah without preliminary report from investigating agency, Advocate-General argues before Karnataka HC  

The Governor could not have directly granted approval, following complainants seeking direction from a special court for order to conduct an investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, without securing a preliminary report from the investigating agency concerned, it was argued before the High Court of Karnataka on behalf of the State government.

The Governor could not have directly granted approval, following complainants seeking direction from a special court for order to conduct an investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, without securing a preliminary report from the investigating agency concerned, it was argued before the High Court of Karnataka on behalf of the State government.

Appearing for the government, State Advocate-General (A-G) Shashi Kiran Shetty on Monday contended that even though the Governor is a competent authority to grant approval for probe against the Chief Minister, he could not have directly played the role of conducting a “preliminary inquiry or enquiry” in terms of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

These submissions were made before Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who is hearing the petition filed by Mr. Siddaramaiah questioning the legality of the approval granted by the Governor in respect of three pleas seeking permission for allowing probe against the Chief Minister, who is facing the allegation that his “undue influence” over a period resulted in MUDA illegally allotting 14 sites to his wife, Parvathi.

During the hearing, the court pointed out to the A-G that he himself, in his legal opinion given to the State Cabinet on the Governor’s showcause notice to Mr. Siddaramaiah, had referred to the High Court’s July 2023 verdict of holding that “the trial courts cannot entertain private complaints against public servants in the absence of production of approval, granted by the competent authorities to the complainants under Section 17A of the Act.”

When the court told the A-G that he is “blowing hot and cold” in his submissions on the power of the Governor to grant approval for probe under Section 17A of the Act, Mr. Shetty pointed out that the pleas of the complainants for the probe could not have been entertained by the Special Court of Sessions for criminal cases against former and present MLAs and MPs in terms of the High Court’s 2023 verdict.

However, Mr. Shetty clarified that it was compulsion on the part of the Governor to seek a “preliminary enquiry or inquiry” report from the investigating agency before granting approval in favour of the complainants for presenting the approval for probe before the special court.

Elaborating on the allegation that Mr. Siddaramaiah was either the Deputy Chief Minister or the Chief Minister during a majority of the government’s decisions taken during 1996-2023, which ultimately culminated in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife, senior advocate Lakshmy Iyengar, appearing for one of the complainants, said that there was “a lull period” as nothing in this case was moved in MUDA when he was not holding any posts, either as MLA, Deputy Chief Minister or Chief Minister between 1999 and 2003-04.