Bengaluru:  The Karnataka High Court yesterday reserved its verdict on a petition seeking to transfer the investigation into the alleged illegal allotment of 14 sites to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, B.M. Parvathi, from the Mysuru Lokayukta Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who heard marathon arguments on the petition filed by Mysuru-based social activist Snehamayi Krishna, extended the interim order passed on Dec. 19, 2024. The time granted to the Lokayukta Police to file their final report was also extended until the Court pronounces its judgement.

The petition contends that an impartial investigation is impossible as Siddaramaiah, being the CM, wields significant power and influence over State Departments, including the Karnataka Lokayukta Police. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory application (IA) seeking to add the Enforcement Directorate (ED) as a party-respondent in the main petition.

Accused can’t choose probe agency

Senior advocate Maninder Singh, representing Snehamayi Krishna, argued that accused persons cannot decide the investigating agency. He emphasised that transferring the investigation to an independent agency is crucial, as State authorities, including the Cabinet and Chief Secretary, have collectively defended the CM regarding the alleged illegalities.

He cited a Supreme Court judgment indicating that cases involving high-ranking State officials should be investigated by independent agencies for fairness. Singh pointed out that the Lokayukta Police comprises officers from the State Police, raising concerns about their independence.

Undermining Lokayukta Act

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State, countered that circumstances outlined by Supreme Court for transferring investigations do not apply in this case. He argued that transferring the probe without revealing Lokayukta Police’s findings to both the accused and complainant would be improper.

Sibal also stated that transferring the investigation would undermine the Lokayukta Act, which empowers the Lokayukta to investigate cases, including those involving Chief Minister.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, argued that Snehamayi Krishna had initially requested a Lokayukta Police probe before the Special Court.

He pointed out that the complainant had not alleged any bias or inefficiency in the Lokayukta Police’s ongoing investigation. Singhvi further argued that neither the complainant nor the accused could select the investigating agency and dismissed the notion that the probe should be transferred solely because the Chief Minister is implicated.

Senior advocate Dushyant Dave, representing the landowner Devaraju, claimed that the petitioner had suppressed key documents related to the land in question. He argued that these documents prove the denotification order for Devaraju’s land was issued before the final acquisition process.