New Delhi/Bengaluru (PTI): BJP leader Basanagouda Patil Yatnal on Wednesday said he has explained to the party leadership in detail the alleged "adjustment politics, grand corruption and dynastic politics" prevailing in the Karnataka unit of the party.

The MLA said he has submitted a six-page reply to the notice served to him by BJP Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) member secretary Om Pathak for his “tirade against the state-level party leadership and defiance of party directives.”

“In my letter, I have said that our party should come out of the adjustment politics, grand corruption, clutches of dynastic politics and the voice of Hindutva should grow stronger because UP, Assam, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh are now leaning towards Hindutva,” Yatnal told reporters in New Delhi.

According to him, people of Karnataka are not ready to accept anyone against Hindutva.

“I have also explained the serious cases against Yediyurappa and his family and the adjustment politics,” Yatnal added.

He said he demanded a neutral national leader for Karnataka.

Yatnal said that there were many neutral leaders, who were unhappy with the Yediyurappa family, but they are not speaking against the former CM because of internal discipline.

Yatnal is a strong critic of BJP veteran B S Yediyurappa and his family, especially his son and the party's Karnataka chief B Y Vijayendra.

He has often targeted them and demanded that the BJP central leadership check Yediyurappa's 'dynasty politics' in order to fight against the 'dynasty politics' of Congress effectively.

Yatnal along with a few senior BJP leaders, including MLA Ramesh Jarkiholi, Arvind Limbavali, Mahesh Kumtahalli, and Madhu

Bangarappa had taken out a month-long anti-Waqf march from Bidar to Chamarajanagar. The march started on November 25 and will conclude on December 25.

The march is widely perceived as a show of strength by the anti-Vijayendra faction within the BJP. Yatnal has said the march was not directed against any individual but aimed at "protecting farmers, Sanatana Dharma, and Hindus from eviction notices issued by the state Waqf Board."

However, the march is perceived as a show of strength against Yediyurappa and Vijayendra. It does not have the sanction of the state party leadership.

Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.



Bengaluru: The Karnataka government told the High Court on Tuesday that the Governor does not have the authority to sanction the prosecution of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the MUDA scam.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the State, argued before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind that the Governor’s decision to grant prosecution sanction raises a significant constitutional issue. "The Governor cannot approve the prosecution of a Chief Minister. If this precedent is set, it could lead to chaos," Sibal said.

The Bench issued notice on Siddaramaiah's appeal challenging a single-judge's decision to uphold the Governor’s sanction. The matter has been posted for further hearing on 25th January 2025.

The case pertains to allegations of corruption involving the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA). The Governor, Thawar Chand Gehlot, granted sanction on 26th July to prosecute Siddaramaiah based on complaints by activists TJ Abraham, Snehamai Krishna, and Pradeep Kumar SP. The complaints alleged that MUDA granted inflated compensation for 14 parcels of land to Siddaramaiah's wife, Parvathi, in exchange for the development of three acres of land gifted to her by her brother, Mallikarjuna Swamy.

Devaraju, the original owner of the land, expressed distress over being dragged into the case. Represented by Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, Devaraju urged the court to protect him, arguing that he had no connection to the political controversy.

The Bench assured him, stating, "You are like the lotus in murky water. We'll treat you separately." However, it declined to stay the criminal proceedings against him.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Siddaramaiah, contended that the Governor’s decision violated s.17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior police inquiry before granting prosecution sanction. Singhvi also argued that the Governor must act on the advice of the council of ministers, barring cases of manifest illegality.

Senior Advocates KG Raghavan and Maninder Singh, representing the complainants, supported the Governor's decision. Meanwhile, the court declined to comment on a plea seeking a CBI probe into the scam, which is scheduled for a hearing on 10th December.