MUDA Case: SC Ruling Brings Relief For Siddaramaiah Amid Power-Sharing Dispute With Shivakumar
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the Karnataka High Court's ruling, which quashed the ED's plea to issue notices and summon Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's wife BM Parvathi in the MUDA land allotment case, has brought temporary legal relief and fresh political momentum.
For Siddaramaiah, the timing could not have been more strategic. The pressure from his deputy DK Shivakumar's camp to honour an 'unwritten" power-sharing formula has been intense.
The Supreme Court order, which criticised the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for being used in political battles, has landed squarely in Siddaramaiah's favour, strengthening his position just when his hold over the chief minister's chair was being questioned.
'This is a shot in the arm. The timing couldn't be better," said a close aide of Siddaramaiah, as talk of a mid-term transfer of power to Shivakumar resurfaced in party circles.
At the heart of the controversy is the decision to allot 14 sites worth Rs 56 crore to BM Parvathi as compensation for land inherited from her family and acquired by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA). Although this decision was made during the BJP's tenure, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India flagged procedural irregularities, opening the door for political attacks.
The issue escalated when the ED entered the scene, summoning Parvathi and minister Byrathi Suresh under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). This brought the fight to the chief minister's doorstep, marking the first time a member of his family was directly in the spotlight.
For someone who has built his reputation on a clean image without corruption charges, the MUDA case damaged his image. Even within the Congress, there were murmurs about whether he had slipped.
The Supreme Court, however, firmly dismissed the ED's appeal while the Chief Justice of India (CJI) made a blunt remark: 'Let political battles be fought amongst the electorate. Why are you being used for it?"
Siddaramaiah called it the 'slap of justice" on the face of the BJP and accused the Centre of engineering a political vendetta. The emotional tone of his response, that the case caused 'immense mental distress" to his family, was also politically calculated.
He is once again positioning himself as the Congress CM who can stare down the BJP. A senior Congress leader, on condition of anonymity, said: 'He's the only one who can look Modi in the eye and say what he wants. The CBI and ED can't touch him as he has remained non-corrupt, and this verdict reinforces that image. He'll use this to raise his profile in the state as well as nationally."
In Delhi, the messaging has been equally clear. At the recent Congress OBC Advisory Council meeting in Bengaluru, Siddaramaiah not only presided but did so with the weight of someone not planning to exit.
Party chief Mallikarjun Kharge and senior Congress leaders pronounced Siddaramaiah as the CM, while insiders said that he made it clear to the high command, during the closed-door meetings, that he will abide by their decision but hopes to finish his five-year term.
The Shivakumar factor, however, remains unresolved. What will be the stance when the high command asks Siddaramaiah to hand over the reins to his current deputy?
At a Sadhana Samavesha event in Mysuru, Siddaramaiah's refusal to even name his deputy on stage raised eyebrows and confirmed what many have suspected. When reminded by a party worker to include Shivakumar's name in his speech, he said: 'DK Shivakumar is in Bengaluru and not on stage. We only welcome those present here. We cannot extend greetings to someone sitting at home."
It wasn't just irritation. It was a signal. With pressure building from Shivakumar's supporters and talk of rotation agreements resurfacing, Siddaramaiah's very public rebuke made one thing clear: he's not going anywhere.
The MUDA case had put Siddaramaiah in a tight spot, not just as CM, but on a personal level. It also came at a time when he took over the reins as the Congress CM for the second time, particularly as a strong OBC leader alongside Kharge. The fact that it involved his wife, even if the land was later returned, complicated the narrative and the 'clean record" he had spent years cultivating.
'The best part about Siddaramaiah is his moral clarity. He's never wavered from his support for marginalised communities and backward classes. He represents a voice that has long been ignored and maligned," said political analyst Harish Ramaswamy. 'Unlike many OBC leaders, Lalu and others, who've been tainted by scams, Siddaramaiah has largely kept a clean image. That's what gives him the moral strength to challenge even PM Modi."
Ramaswamy said in the MUDA case, too, his wife should have avoided the allotment altogether. 'That is one visible weak spot. When I've met him, even in his own home, it's clear that he keeps his wife away from public life. So, this case came as a surprise. Fourteen sites allotted to her raised questions. It perplexed many," he said.
So, will the Supreme Court ruling help him in the long run? It looks like.
'It definitely will. He's the kind of leader who knows how to use a moment like this. He speaks his mind, takes on the RSS and BJP openly, and nobody can intimidate him, not the CBI, not any agency, as he prides himself on his clean, corruption-free image," he added.
Get Latest Updates on Movies, Breaking News On India, World, Live Cricket Scores, And Stock Market Updates. Also Download the News18 App to stay updated!
tags :
muda scam Siddaramaiah
view comments
Location :
Bengaluru, India, India
First Published:
July 22, 2025, 00:58 IST
News politics MUDA Case: SC Ruling Brings Relief For Siddaramaiah Amid Power-Sharing Dispute With Shivakumar
Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Presidential reference hides binding rulings on Governors: Kerala tells SC
State of Kerala has urged the Supreme Court to reject Presidential reference on Governors' assent timelines, saying it suppresses key rulings and misuses Article 143 to reopen already settled issues Rimjhim Singh New Delhi The state of Kerala has filed an application in the Supreme Court, challenging the Presidential reference that seeks the court's opinion on the time limits for Governors and the President to assent to Bills passed by state legislatures, Bar and Bench reported. Advocate of the Kerala state has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the reference without answering the questions raised, arguing that the matter has already been settled by previous rulings of the court. The state said, the reference hides key constitutional judgments, making it legally weak and misleading. Kerala's argument: Reference is not maintainable The Presidential reference seeks the Supreme Court's opinion on 14 key issues concerning the powers of Governors under Article 200 and the President under Article 201. Kerala has strongly opposed this, calling the entire basis of the reference 'flawed'. The state of Kerala objected especially to the suggestion that Article 200 does not specify any deadline for a Governor to act on a Bill. 'This is amazing,' the application states, '…and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the Hon'ble President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'.' Kerala said that the issues raised have already been clarified by the Supreme Court in three important cases: * State of Telangana vs Secretary to the Governor of Telangana * State of Punjab vs Principal Secretary to the Governor of Punjab * State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025 INSC 481) According to the application, 11 out of the 14 questions raised in the reference were directly settled in the Tamil Nadu case, which was delivered just one month before the reference was made. Kerala argued that this judgment was not even mentioned in the reference — a serious omission, the news report said. 'Court cannot be misled or asked to overrule itself' Kerala state mentioned that the omission of these judgments is a way to mislead the top court into reviewing and possibly overruling its own decisions, something that cannot be done through a Presidential reference. 'The present reference suppresses the single important aspect,' Kerala said, '…that the first 11 queries are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court… the existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference.' The state also said that the Union government never challenged the Tamil Nadu ruling by filing a review or curative petition. Therefore, the verdict is final under Article 141 and cannot be questioned again through a different route. Reference misuses presidential power, Kerala alleges Calling the reference 'a serious misuse' of Article 143, Kerala stated that the top court cannot act as an appellate authority over its own settled judgments. It also said that the President cannot use Article 143 to indirectly reopen legal questions that have already been answered, the news report said. What the Supreme Court had held earlier In April 2025, a Supreme Court Bench ruled that the Governor's inaction under Article 200 was subject to judicial review. It said that while Article 200 does not mention a deadline, the Governor must act 'within a reasonable time' and not stall the democratic process. On the President's powers under Article 201, the court ruled that decisions must be made within three months. If there is any delay, the reasons must be given to the concerned state. Following this, President Droupadi Murmu sent a reference to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Constitution does not allow courts to set such deadlines or suggest 'deemed assent' in case of delays. Kerala, however, said that the Court's rulings are final and that the President's reference is both unnecessary and unconstitutional.
Scroll.in
5 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Bihar voter roll revision should be aimed at mass inclusion, not exclusion: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Monday said the Election Commission should focus on ' mass inclusion ' rather than 'en masse exclusion' while revising the electoral rolls in Bihar ahead of the Assembly elections, The Hindu reported. The court reiterated its July 10 directions asking the poll body to consider adding Aadhaar cards and voter identity cards to the list of valid documents for the ongoing exercise. A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a clutch of petitions challenging the Election Commission's decision to exclude the two documents from the list of acceptable proof of citizenship for those whose names did not appear in the 2003 electoral roll. In an affidavit filed on July 21, the poll body maintained that Aadhaar and ration cards could not be included as standalone valid documents. It had argued that such documents can be obtained through fraudulent means, which was why they were not sufficient. In response to this, the court said that any of the documents enlisted by the poll body could be forged and questioned the rationale behind excluding Aadhaar and voter identity card from its list, Bar and Bench reported. 'Include these two documents,' the legal news outlet quoted the bench as saying. 'Tomorrow you may see not only Aadhaar but out of 11 they can also be forged. That's a separate issue…Please include Aadhaar.' The revision of the electoral rolls in Bihar was announced by the Election Commission on June 24. As part of the exercise, persons whose names were not on the 2003 voter list will need to submit proof of eligibility to vote. This means that 2.9 crore out of the state's 7.8 crore voters – or about 37% of the electors – will have to submit documentary evidence. Voters born before July 1, 1987, must show proof of their date and place of birth, while those born between July 1, 1987, and December 2, 2004, must also submit documents establishing the date and place of birth of one of their parents. Those born after December 2, 2004, will need proof of date of birth for themselves and both parents. If the officers are satisfied with the details provided, the voters will be re-enrolled to a new voter list by electoral registration officers. If not, they will be removed from the voter lists. A draft roll will be published on August 1 and the final roll will be out on September 30. On July 2, eleven INDIA bloc parties told the Election Commission that the special intensive revision of Bihar's electoral rolls risked disenfranchising more than 2.5 crore voters, as they may not be able to produce the necessary documents. Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar on July 6 defended the exercise, claiming that the exercise had to be carried out as no one was satisfied with the current voter rolls. 65 lakh names may be removed: EC The Election Commission on Sunday said that 91.6% electors in Bihar had submitted their enumeration forms for the special intensive revision of the state's electoral rolls by the end of the first phase of the exercise on Friday. The poll panel said that more than 7.2 crore out of the state's 7.8 crore electors had submitted the forms by the deadline, indicating 'overwhelming participation'. This would mean that the remaining 65 lakh names registered in the July 2025 list may not make it to the draft rolls to be published on August 1. The poll body also reiterated that the draft electoral roll to be published on August 1 was not the final voter list, adding that a month's time would be given to include eligible electors and exclude those ineligible.
Hans India
5 minutes ago
- Hans India
Victims of Sigachi unit blast not paid compensation, says BRS leader
Hyderabad: Bharat Rashtra Samithi (BRS) leader T. Harish Rao on Monday alleged that the Telangana government has failed to pay compensation to families of those who died in an explosion at Sigachi Industries Limited in Sangareddy district on June 30. He, along with relatives of some of the victims, met the Additional Collector and slammed the government for its failure to hand over the bodies of the deceased and for not paying compensation of Rs 1 crore each as announced by the Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy. Harish Rao led a protest rally by the families of the victims to the district Collector's office. The former minister said even a month after the accident at the factory in Pashamylaram industrial area, there is no clarity on the number of dead, as the bodies of eight workers have not been handed over to their families. He recalled that the Chief Minister had announced Rs 1 crore compensation each to the families of the deceased, but not even one family has received the ex gratia. Harish Rao said the families of the deceased were in mental agony as they were handed over charred body parts, which they had to immerse in the river. The BRS leader said that an accident of this scale had not happened in the history of united Andhra Pradesh and Telangana. He said that though 54 people lost their lives in this tragedy, the state government's response has been most pathetic and irresponsible. He said there was no official statement about the number of dead and injured. He wanted to know why the government was hiding information about the payment made to the families of the deceased and the injured. Harish Rao said the families of the victims were running around the government offices for death certificates and compensation. They are spending Rs 20,000 to Rs 30,000 to travel from states like Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. He said the Chief Minister had announced Rs 10 lakh each to the critically injured, but they received only Rs 50,000. Harish Rao demanded that the government pay at least Rs 50 lakh each to the critically injured and also ensure payment of monthly salaries. The BRS leader pointed out that an NGO has filed a petition in the High Court, seeking direction to the authorities to pay compensation as promised by the Chief Minister. He also alleged that the government is trying to shield the company management, though it has become clear that the accident was caused by their negligence. He claimed that Yashwant, son of a worker, Jagnmohan, who died in the accident, stated in his complaint that workers had warned the company many times that the use of old machinery could lead to disaster, but it did not pay any attention.
