A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court is set to pronounce verdicts in two politically significant cases on Friday with respect to Karnataka’s Congress Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and former BJP chief minister B S Yediyurappa.
The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna is scheduled to pronounce its order on Friday in a plea by an RTI activist for a CBI probe against Siddaramaiah and his family for alleged corruption in land allotments made by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda) in 2021 – where the Karnataka Lokayukta police have conducted an investigation.
The same bench is also scheduled to announce its verdict on Friday in a plea filed by former BJP CM B S Yediyurappa for the quashing of a case filed against him under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act in March 2024 – where a chargesheet has been filed by the Criminal Investigation Department of the Karnataka Police.
Siddaramaiah’s Muda case
The high court reserved its judgment on January 27 in a plea filed by RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna for a CBI probe into land grants made by Muda to the current Karnataka Congress CM Siddaramaiah’s family in 2021 when the BJP was in power in the state.
The RTI activist who obtained a sanction from Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to prosecute the Karnataka CM was granted clearance by the high court on September 24, 2024, to seek an investigation into Muda land allotments to Siddaramaiah’s family.
A special court ordered an investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta police on September 25, 2024, after the RTI activist sought a probe by the Lokayukta, the CBI or any other agency. The RTI activist however approached the high court again on September 28 – a couple of hours before the Lokayukta police registered an FIR – to seek a CBI probe in the matter.
The Lokayukta police were originally due to submit their investigation report on December 28, 2024, to the special court – which ordered the probe – and submitted a report on its investigations to the HC on January 27.
Story continues below this ad
Justice Nagaprasanna reserved his order on the plea for a CBI probe after taking on record the sealed cover containing the investigation report of the Lokayukta police.
While taking the probe report on record and reserving the judgment, the high court also extended the time for the trial court to receive the Lokayukta police report until the date of the judgment.
During the arguments, on January 27, the high court indicated that it would peruse the report of the Lokayukta police and decide on the plea for a CBI probe. The advocates for Siddaramaiah argued that a decision on the report is the prerogative of the trial court and not the Karnataka HC.
The high court was informed by the advocates for Siddaramaiah that the RTI activist himself had sought a probe by the Lokayukta police or the CBI or any other agency in the first instance and a probe by the Lokayukta police was ordered by the special court.
Story continues below this ad
It was argued on behalf of the chief minister that the HC bench cannot suo motu decide on the demand for a CBI probe after perusing the probe report since the matter falls in the jurisdiction of the special court which ordered the Lokayukta police investigation.
The RTI activist who filed the plea for a CBI probe in the Muda case of land allotment to Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah’s wife B M Parvathi argued that the Lokayukta police were not investigating the case effectively. The complainant has sought a CBI probe in the matter on the grounds that the Lokayukta police function under the purview of the state government.
The case is centred around 14 sites worth Rs 56 crore that were allotted to CM Siddaramaiah’s wife as compensation by Muda in the year 2021 when the BJP was in power – after around 3.16 acres of land which were gifted to the CM’s wife by her brother in 2010 had been “wrongfully” acquired by Muda in 2014.
Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah has argued in public that there was no wrongdoing or corruption on his part in the allotment of 14 housing sites by Muda to his wife during the BJP’s tenure.
Story continues below this ad
The wife of the chief minister has meanwhile returned the 14 compensation sites allotted to her by Muda under a controversial 50:50 scheme.
In his September 24, 2024, order facilitating a probe against the Karnataka CM and his kin, Justice Nagaprasanna had raised questions with regard to the value of the original land vis-a-vis the value of the land allotted in compensation.
Siddaramaiah has filed an appeal in the HC against the single-judge order of September 24, 2024, which facilitated the investigation into the alleged illegalities in the allotment of the Muda housing sites to his wife. A division bench is due to hear the appeal on March 22.
Yediyurappa’s Pocso case
Former Karnataka CM B S Yediyurappa, 81, who was accused in March 2024 by the mother of a teenager of sexually inappropriate behaviour has sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him under the Pocso Act.
Story continues below this ad
The CID unit of the Karnataka Police filed a charge sheet against the former BJP CM and three others on June 27 in the Pocso case.
The CID filed the chargesheet under Section 8 (sexual assault) of the Pocso Act, and Sections 354 A (sexual harassment), 204 (destruction of evidence), and 214 (offering gifts to silence the victim) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A special court for Pocso cases took cognizance of the charge sheet on July 6 last year and issued a summons for the former CM and others.
The Karnataka HC ruled on June 14, 2024, that Yediyurappa should not be arrested in the Pocso case and later, on July 12 of the same year, allowed the exemption of Yediyurappa and three others from appearing in court on the basis of the July 6 summons.
Story continues below this ad
Although no stay was issued by the high court against the proceedings in the special court, the Pocso court proceedings were stalled on account of Yediyurappa seeking the quashing of the chargesheet in the high court.
In November 2024, the Karnataka government moved an application in the high court for withdrawal of the exemption granted to Yediyurappa from appearing in the trial court and sought a clearance from the HC for proceedings to continue in the trial court.
The high court’s attention was drawn by the special public prosecutor to Section 35 of the Pocso Act which specifies that the evidence of the child victim of sexual offences must be recorded within 30 days of the trial court taking cognizance of a case filed under the Pocso Act.
The Karnataka HC in a 2021 judgment by Justice B V Nagaratna and Justice M G Uma had directed judges of special courts for Pocso cases to comply with Section 35 of the Pocso Act in the matter of recording of evidence of the victim child and the conclusion of the trial within the stipulated time (one month after taking cognizance and one year, respectively).
Story continues below this ad
Justice Nagaprasanna observed in September 2024 that long delays in the trial process of cases of sexual offences against children, despite the Pocso Act mandating completion of trial in a year, put the entire judicial system to shame. The observation was made in a Pocso case where the victim was killed and the matter remained pending for over seven years.
According to the police complaint filed by the minor victim’s mother on March 14, 2024, she visited the home of Yediyurappa on February 2, 2024, with her daughter to seek justice in an earlier case of sexual assault by a relative on her daughter when the former CM allegedly touched her daughter inappropriately.
Three associates of the former CM – Arun Y M, Rudresh M, and Y Mariswamy – are also accused in the case under Sections 204 and 214 of the IPC for allegedly destroying evidence by deleting a video recording of the victim’s mother’s confrontation with Yediyurappa over the incident.
The advocates for the former CM have questioned the validity of the FIR which was registered over a month after the alleged incident and the credibility of the victim’s mother – who passed away a few months after filing the case.
Story continues below this ad
The defence advocates have argued that the victim and her mother also met Yediyurappa after the alleged incident and before the filing of the FIR.