Daijiworld Media Network- Bengaluru

Bengaluru, Feb 21: The Karnataka High Court has reserved its verdict on the petitions challenging the Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons issued to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, and urban development minister Bhyrati Suresh in connection with the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam.

On Thursday, justice M Nagaprasanna heard arguments from both sides, following which he extended the stay on the summons and reserved the case for final judgment.

Parvathi, named as the second accused in the case, has approached the court seeking to quash the summons, arguing that she had no involvement in the alleged scam. Similarly, Minister Bhyrati Suresh, a close associate of CM Siddaramaiah, has also moved the court seeking relief from the ED’s investigative proceedings.

Appearing on behalf of the Enforcement Directorate (ED), Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Arvind Kamath stated that 14 sites allotted under MUDA were under Parvathi’s possession, making them proceeds of crime.

"These sites were acquired illegally, and an investigation is necessary. The summons were issued only to gather information, and no formal charges have been framed yet," he informed the court.

The ASG further alleged that Minister Bhyrati Suresh’s office had issued endorsements that facilitated the illegal allotment of sites, which is why his questioning by the ED is crucial.

The ED also argued that several influential individuals had acquired MUDA properties through their relatives.

"Many high-profile figures have secured sites in the names of their relatives, including the former MUDA Commissioner’s family members. Sites have been allotted to grandfathers, wife’s grandfather, and brother’s son, which raises serious concerns," Kamath stated.

He also highlighted the scale of the alleged scam, citing a private complaint that pegged it at Rs 5,000 cr, leading to an FIR being filed by the Lokayukta police.

Representing CM Siddaramaiah’s wife, senior advocate Sandeep Chowta countered that the ED was exceeding its jurisdiction and interfering in matters already investigated by the Lokayukta.
"The ED is not just investigating 14 sites but 1,708 sites, many of which have already been temporarily seized. The Lokayukta police have completed their probe and filed a closure report, stating that there was no misappropriation," he contended.

Chowta also pointed out that Parvathi had voluntarily returned all 14 sites on October 1, 2024, proving that she had no financial gain from them.

"If the alleged proceeds of crime are no longer in her possession, then the ED has no jurisdiction over the matter. If they were hidden or used for illegal financial gains, then an ED probe would be justified," he argued.

Additionally, Chowta questioned the speed of the ED’s investigation, noting that the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report) was registered within just four days of the FIR, raising concerns over due process.

"The ED is merely duplicating the investigation already conducted by the Lokayukta Police," he added.

With the court now reserving its judgment, all eyes are on the High Court’s final decision, which will determine the next course of action in the high-profile case.