Senior advocate K.G. Raghavan submits before HC; hearing adjourned to Sept. 9

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court yesterday extended the interim stay on trial court proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site scam until Sept. 9.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna adjourned the hearing on the CM’s petition for a week, which challenges the legality of Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s sanction for his prosecution.

Senior advocate K.G. Raghavan, representing Respondent No. 4, Snehamayi Krishna, made submissions when the hearing resumed yesterday afternoon. Raghavan emphasised the philosophy of the Prevention of Corruption Act, stating, “Do not use your public office to obtain an advantage, legal or illegal.”

He further explained, “…even if you have used personal influence, not necessarily as a boss, it falls within the scope of Section 7 of the PC Act. The moment you hold public office, it comes with certain obligations and restrictions that do not apply to non-public positions. Therefore, even if you are not directly involved, using your personal influence over a matter in which a decision has been made, and you are a beneficiary, that itself constitutes an offence.”

Raghavan urged the Court to view the sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act not as adversarial but as a measure to ensure probity in public administration and restore public confidence if it has been damaged or eroded.

At this point, the Judge asked, “Where has public confidence in administration eroded?” Raghavan responded, “The very fact that a commission of inquiry has been constituted under the Commission of Inquiry Act indicates an anxiety to investigate this matter, which is of public importance. The Governor’s order refers to this concern.”

On July 14, the Congress Government constituted a single-member inquiry commission under former High Court Judge Justice P.N. Desai to probe the MUDA ‘scam.’

The Judge then questioned, “If something is being inquired into, then why this exercise (sanction for prosecution)?” In response, Raghavan explained, “These are parallel remedies…”

Needs to be investigated

Raghavan further argued that “the fact that the Government itself considers there should be an inquiry into this matter, and that it is of public importance, indicates that there is something that needs to be investigated. The entire allegations involve individuals holding public office.”

“In matters of this kind, the Courts must lean in favour of conducting inquiries,” he submitted. He also claimed that  Siddaramaiah was either Chief Minister or Deputy Chief Minister when significant developments, such as the denotification of the 3.16 acres of land in question, took place.

In the MUDA ‘scam,’ it is alleged that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah’s wife, B.M. Parvathi, in an upscale area of Mysuru, which had a higher property value compared to the location of her land that had been ‘acquired’ by the MUDA.

Raghavan informed the Court that MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in exchange for 3.16 acres of her land, where MUDA developed a residential layout.

Under this controversial scheme, MUDA allotted 50 percent of developed land to the original land owners in exchange for the undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts. Raghavan also pointed out that Parvathi had no legal title over the 3.16 acres of land.