Bengaluru : In the ongoing investigation related to the Muda scam, the Karnataka High Court has extended the stay on Enforcement Directorate (ED) summons issued to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife Parvathi and Minister Byrathi Suresh. The court, after hearing the pleas submitted by the two, has postponed the next hearing to February 20. This extension provides temporary relief to both Parvathi and Suresh from the ED’s summonses until that date. The ED’s lawyer, Solicitor General Aravind Kamath, argued that the ED’s summons was legally valid and that the High Court should not interfere. He also cited a recent Supreme Court ruling that did not mandate summons to be issued before intervening.

On behalf of Byrathi Suresh, lawyer C.V. Nagesh claimed that the ED had issued summons to Suresh’s family members, employees,and other associates, violating their privacy rights. He further stated that Byrathi Suresh had no involvement in the allocation of 14 sites in the Muda case and did not hold any position in Muda. Nagesh contended that the ED summons was illegal.

When asked by the judge about Byrathi Suresh’s position, Nagesh clarified that Suresh had become the Minister for Urban Development only in 2023. Nagesh also highlighted that the ED had sought personal details about Suresh’s family members, including his wife, children, and son-in-law, which was an infringement of their privacy. Nagesh argued that Suresh had no role in the alleged site allocation scam.

The High Court questioned the basis for issuing summons simply due to Suresh being a minister. Nagesh replied that the ED had not provided any justification before issuing the summons and had violated due process.

Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, representing Parvathi, also argued against the ED’s investigation, claiming there was no evidence of money laundering or illegal financial gains. He pointed out that the ED had no grounds for a second investigation, as no illicit funds had been traced. Chouta further emphasized that the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) could only apply if there were proceeds of crime, which was not the case in this situation.

The case is set to be heard again on February 20, with both the defence and ED given time to file objections and submissions. The High Court also mentioned that further proceedings would depend on the upcoming hearing and any additional responses from the parties involved.