Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court yesterday adjourned the hearing on the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to B.M. Parvathi, wife of Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, and Urban Development Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with the alleged Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam case. The next hearing is scheduled for Feb. 20.

A Single-Judge Bench, led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, had earlier granted interim relief to Parvathi and Suresh, staying the ED summons that required them to appear in the alleged MUDA scam-related proceedings. Both had approached the High Court questioning the validity of the summons.

Previously, the High Court had also refused to transfer the investigation from the Lokayukta Police to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

It is alleged that Siddaramaiah used his political influence to secure compensation of 14 sites in his wife’s name in exchange for 3 acres and 16 guntas of land acquired by MUDA. The land, originally acquired by MUDA for Rs. 3,24,700, was later compensated with 14 sites in a prime locality, estimated to be worth Rs. 56 crore.

Legal arguments

Additional Solicitor General Arvind Kamath, representing the ED, cited a recent Supreme Court ruling, arguing that the High Court should not interfere once summons have been issued. He asserted that no rule mandates the issuance of summons only to accused persons.

Advocate C.V. Nagesh, representing Minister Suresh, contended that the ED had overstepped its authority by seeking details of bank accounts belonging to Suresh’s sister, daughter, son-in-law, employees and others.

He called this a clear violation of privacy. Nagesh further argued that there was no connection between the allocation of 14 sites to the Chief Minister’s wife and Minister Suresh. Since Suresh held no position in MUDA, the summons against him were unjustified, he claimed.

When the judge inquired about Suresh’s Ministerial role, Nagesh clarified that he was the Minister for Urban Development and had assumed office only in 2023. He further stated that if such inquiries had come from Income Tax (IT) officials, they might have been justified, but the ED lacked the authority for such investigations.

Defence by CM’s wife’s counsel

Sandesh Chowta, representing Parvathi, argued that there was no money gained from criminal activity in the case, which meant the ED had no jurisdiction. He stated that for a second investigation — by ED — to be valid, it must be based on illicit monetary gains, justifying the ED’s involvement only if illegal financial transactions had occurred.

Chowta also pointed out that in the case of former MUDA Commissioner Dr. D.B. Natesh, the High Court had ruled in his favour, nullifying the ED’s search and seizure. He argued that similar legal violations had occurred in this case as well.

The ED’s search and seizure reportedly yielded no relevant documents. Despite this, the agency confiscated Natesh’s mobile phone and issued summons without adhering to proper procedures, Chowta argued.