Karnataka High Court Extends Stay on Trial Court Proceedings Against CM Siddaramaiah

The Karnataka High Court on Monday extended the interim stay on trial court proceedings against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah until September 9 in connection with the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case. The case involves allegations related to the allotment of compensatory sites to Siddaramaiah's wife, B M Parvathi. The hearing on Siddaramaiah's petition challenging the legality of Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's sanction for his prosecution has been adjourned for a week.

Senior advocate K G Raghavan, representing respondent Snehamayi Krishna, made submissions during the resumed hearing. Justice M Nagaprasanna, presiding over the case, granted a week's time for the Advocate General to present further arguments. The court will reconvene on September 9 at 2:30 pm, with the interim order issued on August 19 remaining in effect until then.

Arguments Over the Legality of Sanction

The controversy centers on the Governor's decision to grant sanction for prosecution under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Siddaramaiah, in his petition, argued that the Governor's order was issued without proper consideration, violating statutory and constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution.

During the hearing, Raghavan emphasized the philosophy behind the Prevention of Corruption Act, arguing that even indirect influence exerted by a public official could constitute an offense. He urged the court to consider the sanction from the perspective of ensuring probity in public administration and restoring public confidence.

The case dates back to the alleged denotification of 3.16 acres of land by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, where compensatory plots were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife in a prime area of Mysuru. Critics have alleged that Parvathi had no legal title over the land in question, raising concerns about the legality of the allotment.