 |
|
The Karnataka Urban Development Minister, Byrathi Suresh, vehemently denied any involvement in the ongoing MUDA (Mysore Urban Development Authority) scam, asserting that both he and Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife, B.M. Parvathi, played absolutely no part in the alleged irregularities. This statement followed a High Court decision to grant a stay on Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons issued to both individuals. The court's decision, handed down on Monday, temporarily halts the ED's investigation until February 10th, pending further hearings. Minister Suresh emphasized his complete faith in the judiciary and the constitutional process, expressing surprise at receiving the ED notice and highlighting that he wasn't in charge of the Urban Development Ministry when the alleged offenses took place. He further pointed out that any sites allotted to the CM's wife had been subsequently returned, a fact that seemingly convinced the High Court to grant the stay. This assertion directly counters allegations made by the BJP, which claims Suresh removed and potentially destroyed crucial documents related to the case.
The BJP's accusations paint a picture of a clandestine operation involving a helicopter transfer of documents to Bengaluru, suggesting a concerted effort to conceal evidence. This claim adds a significant layer of complexity to the case, raising questions about potential obstruction of justice. The High Court’s decision to grant the stay, however, casts doubt on the immediacy and necessity of the ED's actions. Justice M. Nagaprasanna's questioning of the ED's urgency, asking "What is the tearing hurry?", reveals a judicial skepticism regarding the timing and potential motives behind the investigation. This skepticism was further amplified by the court's observation that the illegal assets in question were no longer in the possession of the accused, suggesting the investigation's impact might be minimal at this stage.
The court's deliberations highlight the tension between the ED’s investigation under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the ongoing court proceedings in the MUDA case. The court's concern about potential interference with its own judgment process is evident in its repeated questioning of the ED's urgency. The Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Arvind Kamat, representing the ED, argued that the agency was only seeking statements and documents from the accused, and this would not impede the court's proceedings. However, the court countered that the summons could lead to arrests, thereby effectively frustrating the court's own process. The court’s decision to stay the ED summons to both Minister Suresh and the CM's wife reveals a deliberate attempt to prevent any actions that could compromise the fairness and impartiality of its reserved judgment in the MUDA case. This cautious approach underscores the judicial sensitivity to the potential impact of parallel investigations on the ongoing legal proceedings.
The legal strategy employed by the defense teams for both Minister Suresh and the CM's wife highlights a clear effort to leverage the court's authority to shield them from the ED's immediate scrutiny. Sandeep Chowta, counsel for the CM's wife, emphasized the lack of monetary gain in the alleged illegal allotment of 14 sites, attempting to downplay the seriousness of the accusations. Similarly, Senior counsel C.V. Nagesh, representing Minister Suresh, successfully argued that his client is not an accused in the MUDA case and should be protected from ED summons. The High Court's previous cancellation of ED summons for former MUDA Commissioner D.B. Natesh sets a precedent that the court readily invoked in deciding the present cases. The fact that the ED issued notices under Section 50 of the PMLA Act, indicating potential legal action against the CM's wife, highlights the gravity of the situation and the lengths to which the CM's family is willing to go to protect themselves from potential prosecution.
The case underscores the intricate interplay between state politics and legal processes in India. The accusations, denials, and judicial interventions all contribute to a complex narrative that will likely unfold further as the court resumes hearings in February. The outcome of the court's reserved judgment in the MUDA case will significantly influence the trajectory of the ED investigation and potentially the political future of those involved. The tension between the ED's mandate to investigate financial crimes and the judiciary's commitment to a fair and impartial trial process is a central theme in this ongoing saga. The High Court's emphasis on preventing the frustration of its own proceedings reflects the broader principle of preserving judicial integrity and ensuring that parallel investigations do not undermine the established legal process.
Source: MUDA case: Karnataka minister denies role, says CM’s wife not involved