Bengaluru, Feb 7 (UNI) The Karnataka High Court on Friday rejected a plea seeking the transfer of the investigation into the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam, purportedly involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, from the Lokayukta police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Justice M Nagaprasanna, delivering the verdict, stated that the material on record did not indicate any bias or irregularities in the ongoing Lokayukta probe that warranted intervention by the court for a transfer.
"The investigation does not appear to be partisan, lopsided, or shoddy to necessitate a referral to the CBI for further investigation or reinvestigation. The petition stands dismissed," the court ruled.
The court had earlier reserved its verdict after hearing extensive arguments from all parties concerned.
Senior Advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for petitioner Snehamayi Krishna, contended that a suspect or accused has no right to determine the investigating agency. Citing Supreme Court precedents, he argued that in cases involving high-ranking officials, an independent probe was essential to ensure a fair investigation. He urged the court to transfer the case to the CBI, raising concerns over possible political interference in the Lokayukta investigation.
However, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, representing J Devaraju, the original landowner from whom the brother-in-law of CM Siddaramaiah purchased the disputed property, countered the claims. He termed the petition an "abuse of process" and highlighted the delay in the petitioner’s approach to the court. Dave also pointed out that the plea was filed within an hour of the Lokayukta police registering an FIR, questioning the petitioner’s conduct.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the state government, asserted that the transfer of investigations is ordered only in exceptional cases where the probe is deemed tainted or mala fide. He dismissed the contention that the Lokayukta police, being under the state government, could not conduct an impartial inquiry, noting that by the same logic, the CBI, which functions under the Central government, could also be considered biased.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing CM Siddaramaiah, submitted that the petitioner had previously accepted the Lokayukta investigation and could not now seek a transfer merely because it involved the Chief Minister. He argued that no exceptional circumstances had been demonstrated to justify a change in the investigating agency.
Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar, representing CM Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvati, alleged that political motives were driving the bid to move the probe to the CBI. He remarked that the CBI functions under the Prime Minister’s Office and accused the petitioner of attempting to use legal means for political ends.
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi, appearing for Siddaramaiah’s brother-in-law Mallikarjuna Swamy, argued that the petition sought an unprecedented declaration that any investigation involving a Chief Minister must automatically be transferred to an independent agency.
After considering all arguments, the court concluded that the Lokayukta police were competent to carry out the investigation and dismissed the plea.
UNI BDN GNK