Karnataka HC stays Lokayukta investigation in MUDA land scam case
In his argument, Raghavan questioned the delay, pointing out that the notice to the building opposite the High Court was issued 35 days late. This prompted the bench to issue a stern notice, warning against granting additional time.
FollowThe Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 19) issued an order in the ongoing MUDA land scam case, staying the Lokayukta's investigation and extending the deadline for its report. The bench, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, ordered that the Lokayukta police refrain from continuing the probe until further directions. A fresh hearing on the matter has been scheduled for January 15, 2024.
The hearing came after the application for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the case was discussed. Senior advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Kapil Sibal, and KG Raghavan appeared for various parties involved. Singhvi represented Siddaramaiah's legal team, while Sibal appeared for the state government, and Raghavan represented Snehamai Krishna, one of the respondents. All the advocates participated in the proceedings through video conference, alongside Lokayukta's Venkatesh Arabatti.
EXPLAINED | What does blue symbolize for Rahul Gandhi, Congress leaders amid Ambedkar row?
The hearing sparked by concerns about the ongoing Lokayukta police investigation, with objections raised over the delay in the notice issuance and the perceived rush in the interim order.
In his argument, Raghavan questioned the delay, pointing out that the notice to the building opposite the High Court was issued 35 days late. This prompted the bench to issue a stern notice, warning against granting additional time.
In the interim, the High Court has instructed the Lokayukta police to submit a report by January 28, 2024, instead of the original December 24 deadline. Despite the stay on the investigation, the court has emphasized that there is no ban on the Lokayukta police continuing their work, leaving open the possibility of further developments.
The state's lawyers, including Chief Minister's counsel Ravi Varma Kumar, objected to the interim order, arguing that the court should not interfere with the ongoing investigation. Kumar stressed that the petitioners had not sought an injunction on the investigation, and therefore, the court should not impose restrictions.
subscribe to Asianet Newsable WhatsApp channel by clicking here.For more reliable and latest news
subscribe to Asianet Newsable Telegram channel by clicking here.
