Petitioner Snehamayi Krishna to move Supreme Court

Bengaluru: In a major relief for Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, this morning quashed a petition seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) 50:50 sites case.

Justice Nagaprasanna, while delivering the verdict, stated, “The material on record does not indicate that the investigation conducted by the Lokayukta is partisan, lopsided or shoddy for this Court to refer the matter to the CBI for further investigation or reinvestigation. The petition is dismissed.”

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Court had reserved its verdict on Jan. 27. CM Siddaramaiah was named as first accused in the case while his wife B.M. Parvathi, was listed as second accused.

The Judge observed that the Lokayukta’s Office does not suffer from questionable independence and that there is no issue of the kind outlined by the Supreme Court that would warrant referring the matter to the CBI for investigation or reinvestigation.

Justice Nagaprasanna further noted that the institution’s insulation from external influence has already been recognised by both the Apex Court and the High Court, adding that a CBI probe is not a universal remedy for the concerns raised.

Reacting to the ruling, petitioner Snehamayi Krishna termed it a temporary setback and stated that an appeal would be filed once the order sheet was available.

The case revolves around allegations that Siddaramaiah used his political influence to secure 14 MUDA sites in his wife’s name in upscale areas in exchange for 3 acres and 16 guntas of land at Survey Number 464 in Kesare,  acquired by the MUDA to form Devanur Layout.

The petitioner had objected to the ongoing investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta and sought a CBI probe instead. While reserving its judgement, the Court had directed Lokayukta to continue its investigation and submit a further report.

Six prominent lawyers argued the case, citing Supreme Court judgements. Petitioner’s Counsel, Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, emphasised the need for an independent CBI probe. He argued that an impartial investigation is essential when high-ranking Government figures are accused. “The entire Cabinet has decided to shield CM Siddaramaiah in this case,” he contended.

Senior Counsel Kapil Sibal countered that the petitioner initially sought a Lokayukta probe but later demanded a CBI inquiry before the Lokayukta could complete its investigation. “The CBI is also under Government control. The Lokayukta Police, however, function independently under the Lokayukta institution,” he argued.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi maintained that this was not a “rarest of the rare” case warranting a CBI investigation, asserting that allowing such petitions would set a dangerous precedent.

Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave, representing the fourth accused, land-owner J. Devaraju, argued that his client faced no criminal charges and that the petition was merely intended to embarrass the Chief Minister. He also accused the petitioner of withholding key documents, including Revenue Department records proving Devaraju’s ownership of the land.

It is a temporary setback. I will review the High Court judgement copy to understand the basis on which Justice M. Nagaprasanna denied a CBI probe into the MUDA sites case and the grounds on which our arguments faced a setback. I will file an appeal in the Supreme Court. This is only a temporary hurdle — I remain committed to fighting injustice, political influence of the powerful and corruption. —Snehamayi Krishna, Petitioner