The Karnataka High Court has directed a special court to reconsider a plea for a Lokayukta police probe into the allegedly illegal allotment of a prime Bengaluru site to a trust linked to Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge's family.

  • High Court faults special court for ignoring a Lokayukta probe request over a 'curable' affidavit defect.
  • Allegations involve a 8,002 sq. m. civic amenity site in BTM 4th Stage, Bengaluru, allotted to the Siddartha Vihar Trust.
  • The trust allegedly posed as an SC institution to secure a 50% lease concession, with the site valued at ₹130 crore.
  • Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasized that court inquiries cannot replace police investigations in corruption cases.

The High Court of Karnataka has intervened in a high-profile case involving allegations of corruption and influence-peddling regarding the allotment of a civic amenities site in Bengaluru. The court has faulted a special court for dismissing a request for a Lokayukta police investigation into the Siddartha Vihar Trust—a charitable entity managed by Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge and his family members, including Karnataka Home Minister Priyank Kharge.

The legal battle began when Vijayaraghava Marathe, State president of Lanchamuktha Karnataka Vedike, challenged an August 11 order. The special court had previously decided to conduct its own inquiry under Section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, rather than ordering a police probe. The reason cited was a "defective affidavit" filed by the complainant, which lacked proper verification as per Section 333(2) of the BNSS.

Read Also:Twisha Sharma Death Case: CBI Files Chargesheet Against Husband and Mother-In-Law

However, Justice M. Nagaprasanna ruled that such technicalities should not obstruct justice. The court noted that an infirmity in an affidavit is a "curable defect" and that the special court should have given the complainant an opportunity to rectify the error before deciding on the merits of the case.

Why This Matters

BozokMedia analysis shows that this ruling reinforces a critical legal precedent: technical procedural lapses cannot be used as a shield to avoid deep-dive investigations into public servants. In corruption cases, the power to summon official records and interrogate bureaucrats is exclusive to investigating agencies, not the trial court itself. By insisting on a Lokayukta probe, the High Court is ensuring that the "paper trail" of government allotments is thoroughly scrutinized.

"An inquiry by the trial court cannot be made a substitute for investigation where the investigation itself is indispensable to discover the evidence."

The core of the complaint alleges that the Siddartha Vihar Trust, despite having secular objectives, misrepresented itself as a Scheduled Caste (SC) institution. This alleged deception allowed the trust to obtain a 50% concession in the lease amount from the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 2009. Furthermore, the trust reportedly secured an alternative site in BTM layout in 2010, valued at approximately ₹130 crore, within a suspiciously short window of 10 days.

The High Court highlighted that critical questions—such as who processed the application and the basis for the SC category classification—cannot be answered by a complainant alone. These answers are "buried" in official records, requiring the excavation powers of a police investigation.

Did You Know?: The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) is the new criminal procedural law that replaced the colonial-era Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in India.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: Who are the primary members of the Siddartha Vihar Trust?
The trust includes Mallikarjun Kharge, his wife Radhabai, son-in-law Radhakrishna, and sons Rahul and Priyank Kharge.

Q2: What was the specific allegation regarding the BDA site?
The trust is accused of falsely claiming SC status to get a 50% discount on the lease of a site valued at ₹130 crore.