The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a plea by JD(S) MP and Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy, seeking to quash a corruption case related to the denotification of two plots of land acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA). The case pertains to his tenure as Karnataka Chief Minister between June 2006 and October 2007, where he allegedly acted for financial gains.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Rajesh Bindal upheld the Karnataka High Court's 2019 decision, which had previously refused to quash the proceedings. The apex court reiterated that an investigation into the matter was necessary and refused to intervene.

Legal Arguments And Court Observations

Kumaraswamy’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, argued that prior sanction was necessary under the amended Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (2018) before any investigation could proceed against him. However, the Supreme Court previously disagreed with this argument, clarifying that the amendment did not apply retroactively to offenses committed before its enactment.

Read Also:- Unfair Toll Collection on Poorly Maintained Highways: J&K High Court Orders 80% Reduction in Toll Fees

During the latest hearing, Justice Rajesh Bindal inquired about the current status of the proceedings. Rohatgi responded that the case was at the stage of cognizance. He further contended that while the Karnataka High Court dismissed the plea, it had left the issue of sanction open for further legal scrutiny.

"The principal question is not only about sanction under Section 19 but also about how the trial proceeded without it," Rohatgi asserted. "Despite raising the issue repeatedly, neither the trial court nor the initial judge examined it thoroughly."

Justice Bindal interjected, stating that the petition regarding the necessity of sanction had already been dismissed. Hence, the only issue left for consideration was the sanction aspect.

Defending Kumaraswamy’s actions, Rohatgi argued that only a few plots were denotified, and the process was not driven by financial considerations.

"He did not de-notify hundreds of plots indiscriminately. It is crucial to understand that only one or two plots were involved," Rohatgi said. "It is also essential to consider who the complainant is in this case."

However, Justice Dipankar Datta countered that even if only two plots were denotified, the process had to follow due legal procedure, which was not adhered to in this case. He questioned the rationale behind the sudden decision to denotify the lands.

"Why would you, all of a sudden, leave all your other work to de-notify these lands? This needs to be investigated," Justice Datta remarked.

Read Also:- Supreme Court Strikes Down Allahabad HC's Mandate for UP Officials to Use Only Government Hospitals

The bench also raised doubts about the legitimacy of the denotification request. When Rohatgi mentioned that the landowner had sought the denotification, Justice Datta pointed out a crucial discrepancy:

"Was she the owner of the land at the time of the application? She had already sold it in 2004, yet the representation for denotification was made in 2005. How can a former owner request denotification?"

Background of the Case

The case stems from a private complaint filed by M.S. Mahadeva Swamy before the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Bangalore City. The complaint seeks the prosecution of Kumaraswamy and 18 others under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including:

• 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy)
• 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust)
• 420 (Cheating and Dishonest Inducement of Property Delivery)
• 463, 465, 468, 471 (Forgery and Using Forged Documents)
• Sections 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
• Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Land (Restriction of Transfer) Act read with Section 34 of IPC

The court’s decision underscores the necessity of due legal procedures in cases of land denotification and corruption allegations. While the case continues in the lower court, the Supreme Court's refusal to quash the proceedings signals a firm stance on corruption-related matters in public office.

Case Details: H.D. Kumaraswamy v. The State of Karnataka and Anr. | SLP(Crl) No. 6740/2020