What did the court agree?(court ) 

New Delhi: Union Heavy Industries and Steel Minister and The Suprem former Karnataka Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy has received a major setback from the Supreme Court.e  (court )  Court has refused to quash the ongoing corruption case against Kumaraswamy. In fact, in 2007, while being the Chief Minister, Kumaraswamy had ordered the cancellation of the notification of two acres of land of Bangalore Development Authority. A complaint was lodged against Kumaraswamy regarding this. Kumaraswamy argued that permission has not been taken from the appropriate authority to prosecute, so this case going on against him should be quashed. The Supreme Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings in the case of cancellation of land notification as the Chief Minister of Karnataka.

What did the court agree?

The court agreed that the right to protection is not available under the amendment made in the Anti Corruption Act in 2018. With this decision of the Supreme Court, the way has now been cleared to proceed with the case going on against Kumaraswamy in the lower court. The Supreme Court rejected the argument of Kumaraswamy’s lawyer that sanction is needed for prosecution.

The court said that the amendments made in the Anti Corruption Act will not apply retrospectively. Actually, the case started after the order to de-notify 2 acres and 24 guntas of land in Banashankari area of ​​​​Bengaluru. This piece of land was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) in 1997. Despite the objections of the BDA, the then Chief Minister Kumaraswamy ordered the cancellation of its notification in 2007, after which it was sold to private parties in 2010 for Rs 4.14 crore.

When Kumaraswamy became the Chief Minister again in the year 2019, a closure report was filed in this case. However, this closure report was rejected by the MP / MLA Court and summons were issued to Kumaraswamy. Kumaraswamy challenged the decision of the MP/MLA court in the High Court, but the Karnataka High Court upheld the summons order, saying that there is no basis for interference in view of the seriousness of the allegations. Kumaraswamy challenged the High Court’s decision in the Supreme Court in 2020. The Karnataka government also opposed Kumaraswamy’s demand, saying that the 2018 amendment made in the Corruption Act cannot be applied to past crimes.