Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Monday adjourned the  further hearing on Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s plea, challenging the legality of Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot’s sanction for his prosecution in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site scam, to Sept. 12 at 12 noon.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, which is hearing the case, instructed the advocates of both the parties to complete their arguments on the same day (Sept. 12), making a clear cut observation that there would be no end to the arguments, if prolonged further.

Addressing Senior Supreme Court Advocate Manu Singhvi, appearing for the applicant (CM Siddaramaiah), through video conference, Justice Nagaprasanna asked whether he would be appearing at the Court in person on Sept.12, for which the latter replied with a yes.

AG Shetty’s arguments

Earlier, Advocate General (AG) Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the State, asserted that only the Police are authorised to conduct such inquiries under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which governs investigations into public officials.

He referred to Lalithakumari case, stating that, there is a need for preliminary inquiry before filing FIR, but not for conducting inquiries under Section 17A.

When Justice Nagaprasanna, asked about the prerequisite permission essential under Section 17A, AG Shetty cited the Supreme Court directive about the preliminary inquiries into the nature of cases. With MUDA case being a 22-year-old case, there is a need for a preliminary inquiry, with even the Central Government drafting the guidelines in this regard.

Lakshmy Iyengar’s observations

Senior Counsel Lakshmy Iyengar, representing complainant Snehamayi Krishna, made a pointed argument that Siddaramaiah’s tenure was marred by key decisions related to MUDA scam, linking him directly to the questionable actions.

Iyengar traced Siddaramaiah’s involvement back to his time as Deputy Chief Minister in 1996, continuing through his term as Chief Minister from 2013 to 2018. She argued that crucial decisions involving land de-notifications — where government-acquired land is returned to private ownership — occurred under his leadership. This, she claimed, clearly connects Siddaramaiah to the allegations of power abuse and mismanagement of public resources.

The crux of the legal debate revolves around whether the Governor adhered to the proper protocols in granting permission to prosecute Siddaramaiah.

Preliminary probe needed

Advocate General Shetty contended that a Police-led preliminary inquiry is a legal prerequisite for such a sanction, a step allegedly bypassed by the Governor, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the entire process.

In contrast, Iyengar underscored that Siddaramaiah’s involvement in the MUDA decisions was not coincidental, but a direct consequence of his political influence during his time in office. She argued that the questionable land transactions at the heart of the scam took place under Siddaramaiah’s watch, pointing to a clear connection between his leadership and the alleged corruption.