The Karnataka High Court has provided interim relief to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, directing the trial court to halt any action against him in the ongoing MUDA land scam case. This relief will remain in effect until August 29, when the High Court is scheduled to hear the matter again.
The court’s decision comes in response to Siddaramaiah’s appeal challenging the Governor’s approval for his prosecution. Siddaramaiah contends that the Governor’s sanction was “illegal and without authority” and asserts that proceeding with the case could cause significant harm to his reputation, disrupt governance, and lead to political instability.
During the hearing, Siddaramaiah’s senior advocate, Abhishek Singhvi, argued that the Governor’s decision to sanction prosecution was made hastily and without proper consideration. Singhvi claimed that the Governor had acted on a complaint filed by activist TJ Abraham, bypassing other pending complaints, and argued that the Governor’s actions seemed to be part of a broader effort to destabilize the Karnataka government.
The court noted that Siddaramaiah’s petition highlighted several procedural issues with the Governor’s sanction. Documents submitted by the Chief Minister’s legal team suggested that the order lacked proper consideration and was issued at an unusually rapid pace.
Siddaramaiah, in his defense, stated that he has maintained a clean record throughout his extensive political career and has never misused his power. He criticized the BJP’s protests as a natural part of political dynamics and reaffirmed his confidence in the judiciary.
The MUDA land scam involves allegations that Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, received land at an inflated value as compensation for land taken for infrastructure development. Activists claim that the land’s value was grossly exaggerated and that the transaction resulted in a loss of ₹45 crore. Siddaramaiah has countered these claims, stating that the land was a gift from his wife’s brother in 1998, though this explanation has been challenged by critics who allege illegal procurement and forgery.
Sources By Agencies
