Mangaluru: In a candid statement on Wednesday, former Karnataka Lokayukta Justice Santosh Hegde called for Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s resignation following accusations implicating him in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) site allotment scam. Hegde was addressing the media on the sidelines of Mangalore University’s Foundation Day celebrations, where he discussed the legal and moral responsibilities tied to the ongoing controversy.
High Court Ruling Spurs Controversy
The allegations surfaced after the Karnataka High Court ruled that the facts surrounding Siddaramaiah’s involvement required further investigation. The case has placed Siddaramaiah under intense scrutiny, with opponents and legal experts questioning his continued leadership.
“The High Court has declared that the facts against Siddaramaiah undoubtedly require an investigation. Given this context, it is only appropriate that he tenders his resignation,” Hegde remarked, stressing the importance of transparency and accountability in public office.
Although Siddaramaiah has denied any wrongdoing, Hegde emphasised that the allegations’ severity demanded a decisive response. “The Chief Minister claims innocence, but from a public perspective, resignation is the most appropriate course of action at this time,” he said.
Siddaramaiah’s Legal Battle and Public Accountability
Siddaramaiah has stated that he intends to appeal the High Court decision, but Hegde expressed scepticism regarding the outcome. “He now claims he will appeal against the decision, but that is an entirely separate matter. Based on the findings of the judge, it seems evident that the Chief Minister is implicated in a scam-like issue, and his chances of obtaining a favourable outcome in a higher court are quite slim,” Hegde noted.
He also suggested that the case be referred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a similar agency to ensure a thorough and impartial investigation. “Ideally, the case should be handed over to the CBI. I hope the investigating agency carries out its duties diligently,” Hegde added.
The Controversial Provision of Sanction for Public Servants
Hegde raised concerns about the provision requiring sanction for investigating public servants. He questioned why such protection was necessary in a democratic setup, stating that it disproportionately shielded government officials from facing the same legal scrutiny as private citizens.
“Why is this sanction necessary for public servants? If a private citizen commits the same offence, no sanction is required for the court to proceed. This provision was introduced during British rule to protect government servants from a flood of complaints as part of the independence movement. In today’s democratic context, there is no reason for it to remain. Public servants are not above the law of the land,” Hegde asserted.
He strongly advocated for abolishing the provision, arguing that it granted undue immunity to public servants.
Political Repercussions and the Road Ahead
The allegations against Siddaramaiah have generated political ripples, with leaders from opposition parties and within the government weighing in on the matter. Former minister Renukacharya, a close aide of Siddaramaiah, added fuel to the controversy by claiming that key documents related to the MUDA case were leaked to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) by the Chief Minister’s own confidants.
Meanwhile, Siddaramaiah has been vocal in his defence, lashing out at Prime Minister Narendra Modi over corruption charges and challenging him to an open debate. “PM Modi has no moral right to accuse me of corruption. I challenge him to an open debate on this issue,” Siddaramaiah said in a fiery rebuttal to his critics.
As the situation unfolds, it remains to be seen whether Siddaramaiah will step down or continue to fight the allegations in court. For now, the case has become a focal point of debate, not just in Karnataka but on the national political stage.
With the Karnataka High Court’s ruling and the call for a Lokayukta or CBI probe, the pressure on Siddaramaiah is mounting. Whether he chooses to resign or remain in office while appealing the decision could have significant ramifications for both his political career and the broader landscape of governance in Karnataka.