‘’Have faith in Karnataka Lokayukta’. The mere involvement of the Chief Minister is not sufficient ground for transferring an investigation in the absence of concrete evidence to show that Lokayukta officers were influenced by the Chief Minister. Karnataka High Court in MUDA case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

WP No. 27484 of 2024 (GM - RES)

Decided on: 07.02.2025

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna

Headnotes:

1. Writ of Mandamus – Transfer of Investigation – Powers of Constitutional Courts

* The Court examined whether an investigation into allegations of corruption involving the sitting Chief Minister of Karnataka and his family members should be transferred from the Karnataka Lokayukta to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

* Held: A constitutional court may transfer an investigation only under extraordinary circumstances, such as clear evidence of bias, interference, or failure of the investigating agency to conduct an impartial probe. In the absence of such circumstances, the investigation should continue with the designated agency.

2. Lokayukta as an Independent Investigating Agency

* The Karnataka Lokayukta was established as an independent body under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, to investigate allegations against public servants, including the Chief Minister.

* Held: The Lokayukta enjoys statutory independence and has investigated multiple high-ranking public officials in the past. The petitioner’s argument that Lokayukta lacks autonomy or fairness was rejected.

3. Judicial Interference in Investigations – Standards for Transfer to CBI

* The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently held that investigation transfers to the CBI should occur only in cases of proven bias, incompetence, or a lack of fair investigation by the designated agency.

* Held: The mere involvement of high-profile individuals is not sufficient ground for transferring an investigation. The petitioner’s claim that Lokayukta officers were influenced by the Chief Minister was not supported by concrete evidence.

4. Precedent on Transfer of Investigations

* Citing various Supreme Court precedents, the judgment reiterated that transfer of investigations to CBI is an exceptional remedy, to be exercised only where there is substantial miscarriage of justice or a reasonable apprehension of bias.

* Held: The Court found no prima facie reason to doubt the Lokayukta’s investigation and, therefore, refused to transfer the case to the CBI.

43. As observed hereinabove, this Court from time to time has secured investigation papers from the hands of the investigating agency. A perusal at the records of investigation would indicate, that all public documents that are available are taken note of, the notifications issued from time to time are also taken note of, and statements of all the accused are recorded. I do not find any partisan, biased, lopsided or shoddy investigation conducted by the Police wing of the Lokayukta. As directed by this Court, the Inspector General of Police of the Lokayukta has,by a separate report, indicates perusal of the report of investigation and narration of facts of such investigation. The Additional Director General of Police has overseen the investigation and has furnished a separate report. All those reports are now to be placed before the concerned Court. A perusal of the report by this Court is only to satisfy itself whether the material on record would need further or re-investigation at the hands of the CBI. In the considered view of this Court, it does not require, re/further/denovo investigation by the CBI. The issue is answered accordingly. 

Ratio Decidendi:

• A constitutional court should not transfer an investigation merely because a high-ranking public official is involved; a transfer should be ordered only when there is demonstrable bias, incompetence, or miscarriage of justice.

• The Karnataka Lokayukta is a statutory authority with sufficient independence to investigate corruption cases, including those against the Chief Minister.

• Judicial interference in criminal investigations must be exercised sparingly, ensuring that the rule of law prevails without disrupting due process.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: 

(i) The Lokayukta/office of the Lokayukta does not suffer from questionable independence. The insulation of the institution from external influences is already recognized by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of this Court, as quoted supra. 

(ii) There is no malady of the kind that is projected by the Apex Court, present in the case at hand, to refer the matter for further/re-investigation to the hands of the CBI. It is not the panacea to the projected ill. 

(iii) The material on record, on its perusal, nowhere indicates that the investigation conducted by the Lokayukta is partisan, lopsided or shoddy for reference to the CBI for further investigation or re investigation