‘MUDA case is a sham’: Siddaramaiah slams BJP in first statement after high court blow, asks, ‘Why should I resign?’

Hours after the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday rejected Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea challenging Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's approval for an investigation against him in a land allotment case linked to Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA), the state's CM called the MUDA case a ‘sham’.

In his first statement after the ruling, Siddaramaiah said he would consult legal experts on whether such an investigation was permitted by law.

“I will not hesitate to investigate," said Siddaramaiah, according to ANI. “I will consult with experts on whether such an investigation is allowed under law or not. I will discuss with the legal experts and decide on the outline of the fight. I am confident that the truth will come out in the next few days, and the investigation under 17A will be cancelled. The people of the state are standing behind me in this political struggle. Their blessings are my protection. I believe in law and the Constitution. Truth will finally win in this fight.”

Addressing calls for his resignation, Siddaramaiah questioned why he should step down while other leaders under investigation remained in power.

"Why should I resign? HD Kumaraswamy is on bail. Did he resign? In an inquiry stage, how come the resignation point arises? We will face them politically," Siddaramaiah said, asserting that the BJP and JD (S) were targeting him.

Siddaramaiah accused the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) and Janata Dal (Secular) of  “revenge politics.”

“This is a fight against the revenge politics of the Narendra Modi-led BJP government. Our judicial struggle against this revenge politics of BJP and JDS will continue,” he said. 

“I have faith in the court. All the MLAs, leaders, and workers of our party and the Congress High Command have stood by me and encouraged me to continue the fight for the law.”

He said the political retaliation was due to his pro-poor policies and fight for social justice.

Siddharamaiah calls MUDA a ‘sham’

He added, “The MUDA case is just a sham. The main objective of BJP and JD(S) is to stop our government's schemes, which favour the poor and the oppressed. The leaders who are asking for my resignation are the same ones who have opposed the schemes implemented by me for the poor and oppressed of the state."

He added, "These same BJP and JD(S) leaders had opposed the Annabhagya, Ksheera Bhagya, Ksheera Dhare, Vidyasiri, Krishibhagya, Pashubhagya, Indira Canteen schemes implemented when I was the first Chief Minister. The leaders plotting against me today have opposed the SCSP/TSP Act. The people of Karnataka have not given BJP enough majority to come to power on its own. So far, BJP has come to power by conducting Operation Kamala.”

High Court ruling on the MUDA case

Earlier in the day, the Karnataka High Court dismissed Siddaramaiah's petition, presented by his counsel, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, via video conference.

“No fault can be found with the Governor exercising independent discretion to pass the impugned order. It would suffice if the reasons were recorded in the file of the decision-making authority, particularly of the high office, and those reasons succinctly formed part of the impugned order. A caveat is that reasons must be in the file,” Indian Express quoted Justice Nagaprasanna.

“Reasons for the first time cannot be brought before the constitutional court by way of objections. The gubernatorial order nowhere suffers from the want of application of mind. It is not a case of not even a semblance of application of mind by the Governor but the abundance of application of mind,” Justice Nagaprasanna stated.

The high court bench added, “The grant of an opportunity for hearing prior to grant of approval under Section 17 A [of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] is not mandatory if the authority chooses to do so it is open to it.”

Justice Nagaprasanna said that the facts require an investigation since the grant of land by MUDA is to the family of the Karnataka CM.

“The facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require investigation. In the teeth of the fact that the beneficiary of all these acts is not anybody outside but the family of the petitioner. The petition stands dismissed,” the court said.

(With agency inputs)