New Delhi, Jul 21 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Enforcement Directorate's conduct in politically sensitive cases as it upheld the Karnataka High Court's decision to quash the case against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife in the MUDA case.

Cautioning against the agency being used as a tool in political battles, a bench comprising Chief Justice B R Gavai said, "Let political battles be fought before the electorate. Why are you being used?" The bench of CJI Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran was hearing the ED’s appeal against a Karnataka High Court order that quashed proceedings in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case involving Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvati.

The CJI said, “Mr Raju (Additional Solicitor General S V Raju for the ED), please don’t compel us to open our mouths. Otherwise, we will be forced to make some harsh comments about the ED. Unfortunately, I have some experience in Maharashtra. Don’t perpetuate this violence across the country. Let political battles be fought before the electorate. Why are you being used?” Acting on ED's appeal, the bench held, “We do not find any error in the reasoning adopted in the approach of the learned single judge (of the high court)....we dismiss it." “We should thank you ASG for saving some harsh comments," the bench said in jest.

The high court on March 7 set aside the ED’s summons to the CM’s wife in the case.

It also quashed the summons issued to Urban Development Minister B S Suresh (Byrathi Suresh), who was not named as an accused, but was called for questioning by the ED.

The high court verdict came on petitions filed by Parvathi and Suresh challenging the ED's action.

The summons were stayed by the court on January 27.

Siddaramaiah is also facing allegations of illegalities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife Parvathi by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).

Siddaramaiah, his wife, brother-in-law B M Mallikarjun Swamy, Devaraju -- from whom Swamy had purchased a land and gifted it to Parvathi -- and others were named in the FIR registered by Lokayukta Police establishment, located in Mysuru on September 27, 2024, following the order of the special court dealing with cases of MPs/MLAs.

On September 30, last year, the ED filed an enforcement case information report to book the CM and others taking cognisance of the Lokayukta FIR.

Lokayukta Police, however, gave a clean-chit to Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, and two other accused in connection with the case in June.

The case was stated to have not been proved against them for want of evidence.

The ED, in its provisional attachment order dated January 17 following an investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, accused Siddaramaiah and others of money laundering in the MUDA site allotment case.

The agency said the 14 sites allotted to Parvathi in Mysuru upmarket were illegally allotted. "Illegal compensation in the form of sites at posh locality worth Rs 56 crore (approx) was obtained through political influence..." it said.

It is alleged that the 14 compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife in an upmarket area in Mysuru (Vijayanagar Layout 3rd and 4th stages), which had higher property value as compared to the location of her land which had been "acquired" by MUDA.

The MUDA had allotted plots to Parvathi under a 50:50 ratio scheme in lieu of 3.16 acre of her land, where it developed a residential layout.

Under the contentious scheme, MUDA allotted 50 per cent of developed land to the land losers in lieu of undeveloped land acquired from them for forming residential layouts.

It is alleged Parvathi had no legal title over this 3.16 acre of land at survey number 464 of Kasare village, Kasaba hobli of Mysuru taluka. PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK

Enforcement Directorate conduct questioned amid scrutiny of summons and provisional attachment in alleged MUDA money laundering probe. The Supreme Court questioned the Enforcement Directorate's conduct in politically sensitive investigations and, on review of an appeal, found no error in the High Court's reasoning that quashed ED summons issued in a MUDA allotment probe. The investigation concerns allegations that 14 compensatory plots were allotted under MUDA's 50:50 scheme as illegal compensation obtained through political influence, prompting a provisional attachment order by the ED after a Lokayukta FIR and a prior Lokayukta finding of insufficient evidence.