Severed cow-head row: Accused had lost cattle worth over Rs 1 lakh in Bajrang Dal raid

Mysuru, Oct 1: The Karnataka Lokayukta team on Tuesday arrived at the disputed plot in Mysuru and began investigation into the MUDA case against CM Siddaramaiah and his wife, news agency ANI reported. Snehamayi Krishna, the complainant in the case was also present with the team.

Sources stated that ED sleuths might issue a notice to CM Siddaramaiah at any time and issue summons to him for questioning. The sleuths are also keenly watching the movements of CM Siddaramaiah’s close associates and relatives, including a cabinet minister in connection with the MUDA scam.

Sources further said that there is a possibility of the ED conducting raids across the state on offices and residences of close associates of CM Siddaramaiah. The ED has also gathered information on bank accounts and financial transactions of CM Siddaramaiah and his associates.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Monday registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), equivalent to an FIR by the police, against CM Siddaramaiah over the alleged irregularities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife Parvathi B.M. by the Mysore Urban Development Authority. The ED registered the case taking cognisance of the FIR registered against the Chief Minister by the Lokayukta police on September 27.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Lokayukta probing the MUDA case has also expedited the probe. The sleuths led by Mysuru Lokayukta SP T.J. Udesh have visited the controversial land on the outskirts of Mysuru city. The petitioner, Snehamayi Krishna, also accompanied the team.

The move of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife to return 14 sites allotted by the MUDA to her has triggered a debate. BJP MLA from Mysuru T.S. Srivatsa stated on Tuesday that the move of CM’s wife is not acceptable. "The two commissioners who colluded in the MUDA scam are roaming freely even today," he said.

"CM Siddaramaiah first claimed that there was no scam at all. Later, he formed a commission and now there is an FIR against him. After committing the mistake, you offer to return the sale deed. The time is up. He will have to tender his resignation and I am sure he won’t be in the position until Dasara festivities," MLA T.S. Srivatsa stated.

T.J. Abraham, one of the petitioners in the MUDA case said, “I had demanded the MUDA commissioner to take back the allotted sites. He had written back saying the process would be initiated. They were waiting for the investigation report."

"CM Siddaramaiah has not approached the division bench or the Supreme Court to challenge the order against him because there is nothing to be challenged. Returning sites is not a big sacrifice. The Chief Minister has lost it," Abraham stated. 
 

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda during a recent court hearing.

Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.