CM Siddaramaiah Was at Helm of Affairs, Prima Facie “Rules Bent to Favour His Family”: Karnataka HC
“Before I say omega, I deem it appropriate to quote what BENJAMIN DISRAELI had to say:
“I repeat… that all power is a trust – that we are accountable for its exercise – that, from the people, and for the people, all springs, and all must exist”.”
This most invaluable quote cited above has been quoted in concluding part of para 58 of this judgment itself!
In a very major setback for the incumbent Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru in a most learned, laudable, landmark, logical and latest judgment titled Siddaramaiah And State of Karnataka & Others in Writ Petition No.22356 of 2024 (GM – RES) that was reserved on 12.09.2024 and then finally pronounced as recently as on 24.09.2024 has minced just no words to state in no uncertain terms that it is difficult to accept that CM Siddaramaiah was not “behind the curtain” during the entire transaction of MUDA land in which his family allegedly benefitted approximately Rs 56 crores. We need to note that this most damning observation was made by the Single Judge Bench of Bengaluru High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna who authored this notable judgment while upholding sanction that was granted by the Governor under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita for investigation/prosecution against the Chief Minister in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam. Siddaramaiah was CM in 2013 when his wife submitted a representation to MUDA contending that it had acquired and formed sites in her lands in 2001 and therefore she is entitled to compensatory sites in the ratio of 50:50. He was CM till 2018.
The rule that was then existing was 60:40 but soon thereafter, in 2015, the Rule was amended to grant sites at 50:50 ratio. Quite intriguingly, Siddaramaiah’s son who was an MLA between 2018 and 2023 himself participated in meeting where a resolution to this effect was passed by MUDA. The purchase of the property in question was on an offset price of Rs 300 in 1935. The determined compensation amount in favour of the owner was at Rs 3,56,000 in 1997. In 2021, this amount escalated most astonishingly to Rs 56 crores!
Unhesitatingly, the Karnataka High Court said that had Siddaramaiah not been at the “helm of affairs”, the benefit with such magnitude would not have flown. It also observed that, “It is unheard of for a common man to get these benefits in such quick succession, bending the rule from time to time.” Adding suspicion further, we saw that after the 14 sale deeds were registered in favour of the CM’s wife, the Urban Development Department issued directions to the MUDA Commissioner to stop allocation of compensatory sites till guidelines are formulated.
What cannot go completely unnoticed is that the High Court added that, “Therefore, the law was completely towards prima facie illegality only to favour the wife of the petitioner as the very allotment of sites as compensation is said to be contrary to the Compensation for Land Acquired Rules 2009 and Incentive Scheme of Voluntary Surrender of Land Rules, 1991.” It said that there are certain dots which need to be connected in the chain of events and the same would require inquiry, which the sanction facilitates. It also rejected the CM’s contention that he made no recommendation nor signed any document to the transaction.
It said that, “It is too bleak a contention meriting any acceptance albeit prima facie that the petitioner was not behind everything standing just behind the curtain. It is not behind the smoke screen but behind the curtain even.” Before parting, the Court firmly held that Siddaramaiah cannot plead complete ignorance about what is happening in his wife’s life. While taking into account all these factors, the Bench said that, “It is rather difficult to accept that the beneficiary of the entire transaction to which compensation is determined at Rs 3.56 lakhs to become Rs 56/- crores is not the family of the petitioner…How and why the Rule was bent in favour of the family of the Chief Minister is what is required to be investigated into. If this does not require investigation, I fail to understand what other case can merit investigation, as the beneficiary is the family of the petitioner and the benefit is by leaps and bounds, it is in fact a windfall. If the beneficiary were to be a stranger, this Court would have shown the complainants their door of exit, while it is not.”
At the very outset, this brief, brilliant, bold and balanced judgment authored by the Single Judge Bench of Bengaluru High Court comprising of Hon’ble Mr Justice M Nagaprasanna sets the ball in motion by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The petitioner is the Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. He is knocking at the doors of this Court, calling in question a GUBERNATORIAL order, which grants permission or approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the PC Act’ for short) and sanction under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNSS’ for short) against him.”
To put things in perspective, the Bench envisages in para 2 that, “Sans details, introductory facts, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:- The petitioner is the present Chief Minister of the State of Karnataka. Before embarking upon the present controversy, I deem it appropriate to notice the period of power of the present Chief Minister, at the relevant points in time, which forms the fulcrum of the lis. Between the years 1996 and 1999 and during 2004 and 2005, the petitioner was the Deputy Chief Minister. He served as a Leader of the Opposition on two occasions, between 2009 and 2013 and between 2019 and 2023 and as Chief Minister in two stints – one, between 2013 and 2019 and the other, currently from 2023. Respondents 3, 4, and 5, who are hereinafter referred to as complainants, seek to register a complaint, initially before the jurisdictional police. The complaint was not acted upon. The 3rd respondent approaches the Commissioner of Police in registering the complaint both in compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. Again no action was taken. It then transpires that he has knocked at the doors of the Special Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. seeking registration of the crime. The concerned Court, noticing the law laid down by this Court in G.V. ASHOK v. LOKAYUKTA – Criminal Petition No.531 of 2022 disposed of on 04-04-2023 keeps the proceedings in abeyance awaiting approval at the hands of the Competent Authority under Section 17A of the PC Act.”
Do note, the Bench notes in para 36 that, “Bias has different hues and forms. They are depicted in various ways. Unconscious bias and apparent bias are two facets of bias. Apparent bias is judged upon what would a common citizen think of a particular action. In the case at hand, the entire sheet anchor of the submission of the learned senior counsel is that the Governor should not have declined to accept the Cabinet decision or the resolution of the Council of Ministers as the petitioner did not participate in the deliberations, but nominated the Deputy Chief Minister, to preside over the said meeting. It need not bear scientific acumen to prima facie hold that the Council of Ministers who are appointed on the advice of the Chief Minister would go against the Chief Minister and pass a resolution that permission should be accorded for grant of approval by the Governor for prosecution . Such a situation cannot be contemplated today as, if such a situation emerges, it would be an utopian land, while it is not. Therefore, testing the decision of the Cabinet on the bedrock of bias, I find no fault in the discretion exercised by the Governor, on the foundation of law, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT’s case.”
Briefly stated, the Bench points out in para 50 that, “The sale deed is executed by MUDA of 14 sites. It now becomes necessary to notice one of the sale deeds. What is perceptible from the sale deed is, that it is executed in terms of the incentive scheme rules, namely Mysore Urban Development Authorities (Incentive Scheme for Voluntary Surrender of Land) Rules, 1991. A perusal at the said Rules would indicate that a citizen who relinquishes the property in MUDA would be entitled to 2 sites measuring 40×60’ which would amount to 4,800 sq.ft. for relinquishing more than 3 acres. It shocks the conscience of the Court as to how much is given to the petitioner as against 4,800 sq.ft., it is 38,284 sq.ft. 2 sites become 14 sites. The wife of the petitioner is now the proud owner of 14 sites worth ‘56/- crores.”
Be it noted, the Bench notes in para 51 that, “How and why the Rule was bent in favour of the family of the Chief Minister is what is required to be investigated into. If this does not require investigation, I fail to understand what other case can merit investigation, as the beneficiary is the family of the petitioner and the benefit is by leaps and bounds, it is in fact a windfall. If the beneficiary were to be a stranger, this Court would have shown the complainants their door of exit, while it is not. The beneficiary is, the family of the petitioner, not today, right from 2004, the day on which the Brother-in-law purchases the property and more so, from 2010 when he gifts the property to the wife of the petitioner. Even if it is taken that there are allegations from 2010, it would suffice for an investigation, in the light of the preceding analysis/findings.”
What also deserves mentioning is that the Bench observes in para 52 that, “The issue now would be whether there is any act of the petitioner that would pin him down not for sanction for prosecution but for investigation. The learned Solicitor General of India has submitted that there is an allegation. The allegation is required to be investigated into. The allegations are as afore-narrated. The learned counsel Sri K.G. Raghavan would submit that there is needle of suspicion with regard to the role of the petitioner, it needs investigation. The learned counsel Sri Ranganatha Reddy appearing for the 3rd respondent has also vehemently projected that fraud is played by the family of the petitioner as non-existent land is now projected to be loss of land and ‘55/- crores worth compensatory sites are granted. The learned senior counsel Smt. Lakshmi Iyengar contends that but for the wife of the petitioner being an applicant the files would not have moved so fast and compensatory sites are granted in the heart of the city when relinquishment of land is 15 kms. away from Mysore city.”
Most significantly, the Bench minces absolutely just no words to mandate in para 53 postulating that, “All the aforesaid allegations, in the considered view of the Court, would require investigation in the least, for the reason that if the petitioner was not in the seat of power, helm of affairs, the benefit with such magnitude would not have flown. It has hitherto never flown to any common man, nor can it, in future flow. It is unheard of for a common man to get these benefits in such quick succession bending the rule from time to time. Therefore, the petitioner may not have put his signature, made a recommendation or taken a decision, for bringing him into the offence against him under the Act, but the beneficiary is not a stranger. The beneficiary of these acts is the wife of the petitioner. It is the open proclamation which is in public domain by the petitioner himself that if MUDA gives him ‘62 crores, he would give back the property. Therefore, merely because the wife of the petitioner has indulged in all these acts, legal or illegal, the petitioner cannot be said to be completely ignorant of what is happening in the life of his wife, qua these factors. It, prima facie, depicts stretching of the arms of undue influence and portrays abuse of power of the seat of the Chief Minister or any other post held by the petitioner.”
Equally significant is that the Bench clearly holds in para 56 that, “If this were to be a case of common man, he would not have fought shy of facing the investigation. In the opinion of the Court, the Chief Minister, a leader of the proletariat, the bourgeois and of any citizen, should not fight shy of any investigation. There is lurking suspicion, looming large allegations, and the beneficiary of ‘56 crores, is the family of the Chief Minister – the petitioner. Judged from these spectrums and analyzed from the aforesaid premises, the irresistible conclusion is, an investigation becomes necessary. The issue is answered accordingly.”
Finally and briefly stated, the Bench concludes by holding in para 59 that, “For the praefatus reasons, the petition lacking in merit, would necessarily meet its dismissal, and is accordingly dismissed.”
In conclusion, it is undeniable and unpalatable truth that this is definitely a huge setback for the Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. It is clarified in this notable judgment that, “The complainants were justified in registering the complaint or seeking approval at the hands of the Governor.” But he still has option to appeal in the Division Bench and then finally in the Apex Court. If he tenders his resignation on moral grounds and displays probity, fairness and total readiness to face any investigation, I am sure that it will definitely only serve to enhance his reputation hugely and set the most right precedent to not occupy the seat of Chief Minister till his name is finally cleared on merit by either the Division Bench of Karnataka High Court or by the Apex Court!
It is very rightly pointed out in this robust judgment itself that, “The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation. In the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside, but the wife of the petitioner.” It is also clarified clearly in this learned judgment that, “The Governor in the normal circumstance has to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as obtaining under Article 163 of the Constitution of India, but can take independent decision in exceptional circumstances and the present case is one such exception.” It is also stated very rightly in this sagacious judgment that, “The decision of the Governor of alleged hottest haste has not vitiated the order.” The ball is now in his court to take the right decision what seems to be most appropriate to him!
Author Bio
