Once friends and allies but now foes, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Union minister HD Kumaraswamy are locked in a fresh war of words. (PTI)
The case, which stems from Kumaraswamy’s 2007 tenure as CM during which he allegedly granted a mining lease to Sri Sai Venkateshwara Minerals in violation of the law, has triggered a war of words in Karnataka
Once friends and allies but now foes, Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Union minister HD Kumaraswamy are locked in a fresh war of words, with the latter accusing the Congress government of reopening old cases to “blackmail” him.
On August 14, the Karnataka Lokayukta Special Investigation Team (SIT) approached Governor Thawarchand Gehlot for the second time, seeking sanction to prosecute Kumaraswamy in an alleged illegal mining lease case. Ten months earlier, in November 2023, a request for prosecution had been submitted. The case stems from Kumaraswamy’s 2007 tenure as chief minister during which he allegedly granted a mining lease to Sri Sai Venkateshwara Minerals in violation of the law.
Siddaramaiah questioned why the Governor had not sanctioned Kumaraswamy’s prosecution with the same urgency as in the MUDA case. He pointed out that his sanction was granted within days of a private complaint, while Kumaraswamy’s case only reached this stage after a full investigation.
Siddaramaiah commented: “If an arrest is warranted, it will happen without hesitation. Even a constable can arrest him if needed. At present, no such circumstance has arisen. Kumaraswamy is simply afraid the Governor will grant sanction.”
Accusing the Congress government of targeting him out of jealousy, citing his Union minister status, Kumaraswamy retorted: “This is a dead case — a case that lacks my signature.” He also claimed that the Congress government was attempting to malign his reputation.
“Even 100 Siddaramaiahs cannot arrest me. Do I look scared to you?” he asked.
Siddaramaiah swiftly responded: “It’s not me — it’s the police who will arrest him. Even a constable is sufficient if required. Arrests are carried out by the police, not by Siddaramaiah.”
Siddaramaiah further criticised Kumaraswamy, calling him a “hit-and-run case”. A similar statement was made by another former Karnataka chief minister, Jagadish Shettar, who in 2023 briefly joined Congress from the BJP and was made a Congress MLC. Shettar, now back in the BJP, had earlier remarked that Kumaraswamy habitually made allegations and ‘fled the scene without offering proof’.
Siddaramaiah added that Kumaraswamy had made many accusations without following them to a “logical conclusion”.
So, what is the Lokayukta case against Kumaraswamy?
During his first term as chief minister from 2006 to 2008, Kumaraswamy allegedly favoured Sri Sai Venkateshwara Minerals over 24 other bidders for a mining lease. It is claimed that the company received clearance in violation of rules, and that Kumaraswamy received Rs 150 crore in kickbacks from mining owners. Kumaraswamy called for a Lokayukta investigation, and a 2011 report found no loss to the exchequer and no improper allocation of mining areas.
This case was also mentioned in a broader Lokayukta report on mining scams, prepared by N Santosh Hegde, which implicated several figures, including BS Yediyurappa and Janardhan Reddy.
In November last year, the SIT first sought the Governor’s sanction to prosecute Kumaraswamy under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act.
A key piece of evidence cited by the SIT is forensic verification of Kumaraswamy’s signature on the mining lease file.
In 2014-15, the case reached the Supreme Court when Siddaramaiah’s Congress government called for an inquiry. The court ordered the investigation to be completed within three months and reserved judgment pending final findings.
“Now, in 2024, the SIT’s investigation is complete. Status reports have been submitted to the Supreme Court, though no final conclusions have been drawn,” Kumaraswamy stated.
He added that when the SIT approached the Governor in November seeking sanction for prosecution, the Governor ordered a review due to concerns over a signature on the file. Kumaraswamy maintains that he is not involved and asserts that the government is damaging his reputation with a “dead case”.
