Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah Wins Temporary Relief As High Court Defers MUDA Land Scam Proceedings

In a significant development for Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, the Karnataka High Court on Monday decided to defer proceedings against him in a case involving alleged irregularities related to the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

The controversy began when Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot granted permission on 17 August to prosecute Siddaramaiah.

The Chief Minister, however, challenged the Governor's decision in the High Court, arguing that it was a deliberate attempt to destabilise his government.

During a brief hearing, Justice M Nagaprasanna directed the respondents to submit their responses and scheduled the next hearing for 29 August.

"Despite the strong objections raised by the complainants against granting an injunction, the court, considering that the case is under review and the pleadings are incomplete, has ordered the deferral of proceedings until the next hearing. No immediate action will be taken regarding the contested sanction," the court stated, according to Business Today.

Siddaramaiah had urgently petitioned the High Court on Monday, arguing that the Governor's sanction was issued "without due consideration, in violation of statutory requirements, and contrary to constitutional principles, including the advice of the Council of Ministers, which is binding under Article 163 of the Constitution of India."

Senior advocate and Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Siddaramaiah, contended, "The elected government, which holds the people's mandate, is being undermined by a complaint lodged decades after the alleged incident. A 'friendly' Governor then grants sanction based on this complaint."

Singhvi was referencing the social activists — T J Abraham, Snehamai Krishna from Mysore, and Pradeep Kumar SP from Bengaluru — who had sought the prosecution of Siddaramaiah.

Following Abraham’s request in July, the Governor issued a show-cause notice to the Chief Minister.

Singhvi also noted that the state cabinet had provided the Governor with a detailed 100-page document outlining why the complaint was "frivolous and why sanctions should not be granted."

He criticised the Governor’s response, stating, "The Governor, in a brief two-page order, addressed only one aspect and provided no justification for granting the sanction."

On behalf of the Governor, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that the Governor, as a constitutional authority, should not have his decisions interfered with by another constitutional body.

Following the arguments, the judge ruled that the magistrate court should not proceed with the complaint until the next hearing on 29 August.