Why use ED for politics? SC warns against misusing agency in Muda scam

The Supreme Court has dismissed the ED's appeal against Karnataka HC order quashing Muda case summons to Siddaramaiah's wife; said political battles should not be fought through agencies

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging the Karnataka High Court’s decision to cancel summons issued to Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, BM Parvathi, in a case linked to the Mysore Urban Development Authority (Muda) scam, Bar and Bench reported. 

A Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran raised serious concerns about the use of investigative agencies for political purposes. “Unfortunately, I have some experience in Maharashtra. Please do not force us to say something. Otherwise, we have to say something very harsh about the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Let political battles be fought among the electorate. Why are you being used for it?” the top court asked. 

 

The remarks came as the SC bench questioned the ED’s intentions behind pursuing the case against Parvathi. 

 

ED withdraws appeal after court’s remarks

Following the observations made by the apex court, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for the ED, said, “Okay, we will withdraw. But let it not be treated as a precedent.” 

The court then proceeded to dismiss the appeal and said the high court judge’s reasoning in quashing the summons was valid.

“We do not find any error in reasoning adopted in the approach of a single judge. In peculiar facts and circumstances, we dismiss it. We should thank you ASG for saving some harsh comments,” the Bench said, as quoted by Bar and Bench.

 

Case involves land allotment by Muda

The case relates to alleged irregularities in land allocation by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (Muda). According to the complaint, BM Parvathi was gifted a little over three acres of land by her brother, Swamy. The land was initially acquired and later de-notified, after which Swamy purchased it. Muda went on to develop the land, even though it was privately owned. 

Swamy claimed he had bought the land in 2004 and later gifted it to his sister. Parvathi then allegedly sought compensation from Muda because of the illegal development. She reportedly received inflated compensation, including 14 developed alternate plots, which were of higher value than the original land. This was done under a 50:50 scheme. Eventually, Parvathi returned the land to the authorities. 

 

High Court had quashed summons in March

Justice M Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court had on March 7 cancelled the ED summons issued to BM Parvathi. The court also quashed summons sent to Minister Byrathi Suresh, who was not named as an accused in the case but was questioned by the ED. 

The ED had then approached the Supreme Court to challenge the High Court’s ruling, which has now been rejected.