New Delhi: The Karnataka high court has quashed summons issued by Enforcement Directorate (ED) for the alleged involvement in the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case of the state chief minister Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi and minister B.S. Suresh, LiveLaw reports. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, accepting their plea challenging the ED, then pronounced the order saying, “Allowed and quashed.”
The quashing of summons is a relief to the Karnataka chief minister as the BJP has tried to indirectly implicate him in the proceedings involving the allotment of land to his wife and his colleague. MUDA had made the allotments were made during the tenure of the JD(S)-BJP government in Bengaluru.
BJP leaders inconsistency with Lokayukta
In the Lokayukta report, as reported by the media in February 2025, Karnataka BJP leaders who were continuously raising the MUDA scam in the assembly against Siddaramaiah’s alleged involvement have made statements to the Lokayukta that contradict their public claims.
The Lokayukta “recorded statements from over 10 current and former MLAs and MLCs as part of its investigation into the Muda site allocation case. Politicians from across party lines, including BJP and JD(S) leaders, gave testimonies that suggest the site allocation to Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi, followed standard procedures and was not influenced by political pressure,” reports India Today. G.T. Devegowda, a longstanding political rival of Siddaramaiah’s, is reported to have told the Lokayukta that he was unaware that Parvathi was the chief minister’s wife at the time of the site allocation. Siddaramaiah was the leader of the opposition in the assembly at the time.
What happened in court?
The Karnataka high court’s two-member bench had reserved its order in February.
Parvathy’s counsel had submitted that she had already handed back the sites which are in contention and alleged to have been illegally issued to her. Her plea was that she “is neither enjoying it nor is in possession of proceeds of crime”. Her lawyer maintained that ED registered its ECIR soon after an FIR was registered by the Lokayukta police on the directions of the court.
The counsel appearing for Suresh had earlier argued: “I assumed office as minister in June 2023. The offence is related to illegal or authorised allotment of sites. Proceeds of crime is in relation to the illegal allotment of sites, in what way am I connected to it? My tenure commenced only in June 2023. Before that I was an utter stranger to MUDA. Moreover, the basis of the complaint is a private complaint. In that there is not even a remotest mention about me. No reference has been made to the petitioner. Then what is the object of issuing the notice?”
Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, appearing for the ED, had said, “There is no law prohibiting me from registering an offence after registration of a predicate offence. During the course of our investigation, one of the persons has stated that he was put under pressure from the office of the accused to make the allotment. We have found dozens of people purchasing property in the names of their relatives.”
He had claimed that “During investigation, the allotment of 14 sites is only a tip of the iceberg.”
On the petitioners’ submission that property has been returned to the authorities, Kamath had said, “Allotment of sites is a criminal activity. If the theory propounded by the petitioner is accepted then it will turn the entire PMLA Act over it head. Any person who is summoned can say now take my property.”
The court had said the allotment and not purchase of lands by the petitioner was an important point. “One factor is sites did not go to the accused by way of sale or purchase but by way of allotment, in lieu of usage of lands of the accused. So it is not that the proceeds of crime have emerged because of that.”
