MUDA scam: Lokayukta’s ‘limited inquiry’ and Siddaramaiah’s ‘unchallenged’ denials spark doubts
New Delhi: The Lokayukta probe into the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam, which involves Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, his wife, and others, has raised serious questions about the investigation’s integrity.
The Lokayukta’s report, available with IANS, discloses that Siddaramaiah was asked only 30 questions before the probe was abruptly closed with the filing of a “B report”.
This swift conclusion has raised many eyebrows. What is more concerning is that the Lokayukta “overlooked” critical findings of the Enforcement Directorate (ED). It may be recalled how the ED had exposed the involvement of key figures, yet these findings were not considered during the Lokayukta’s inquiry.
The limited scope of questioning and the rapid closure of the case now cast doubt on the thoroughness and transparency of the Lokayukta’s probe.
On November 6, 2024, Siddaramaiah appeared before the authorities for questioning in connection with the MUDA scam investigation. The first set of questions, according to the report, focused on basic personal information. Siddaramaiah, accused number one, confirmed his name and occupation as the current Chief Minister of Karnataka.
Asked about the case filed against him, Siddaramaiah, according to the Lokayukta report, expressed his awareness of the charges and the parties involved. His wife, B.M. Parvathi, was named the second accused, with his relative, Mallikarjunaswamy, and another individual, Devaraju, also facing charges. Siddaramaiah confirmed he knew the details of the case but denied any personal wrongdoing, says the report.
The investigators then delved into his personal life, asking about his family. Siddaramaiah mentioned his wife, his late son Rakesh, and his younger son Yathindra, a doctor. He also elaborated on his wife’s family, which included her brother, Mallikarjunaswamy, who is also a central figure in the investigation. Siddaramaiah confirmed that Mallikarjunaswamy had been his brother-in-law since 1977, but he said that there were no financial dealings between them, according to the report.
As the investigation continued, the focus shifted to the land in question. In 2013, Mallikarjunaswamy had purchased 3 acres and 16 guntas of land in Kesare village, but Siddaramaiah claimed he had no prior knowledge of this transaction. He said it was only in mid-2013 that his wife had informed him and their son about the land purchase. He denied providing any financial assistance to his brother-in-law or being involved in the transfer of ownership of the land, says the report.
Siddaramaiah was also asked about his involvement in any land denotification process, particularly regarding the land previously owned by Devaraju. He denied knowing Devaraju and stated that he had not assisted in the land’s denotification, even though Devaraju had applied for land release back in 1998.
The questioning then turned to the donation of land to Siddaramaiah’s wife. Mallikarjunaswamy had donated the land to her in 2013, but Siddaramaiah maintained that he was unaware of this donation until his wife informed him. He also explained that, in 2014, when he was serving as the Chief Minister, he had no knowledge of the MUDA developing the land into roads, parks, and plots. He stated that no action was taken on his part, as he did not consider it appropriate to intervene in such matters as the head of the state.
The investigators continued by probing Siddaramaiah’s connection to the subsequent land compensation granted to his wife by MUDA. Siddaramaiah confirmed that he was not aware of his wife’s application to MUDA for compensation or the decisions made by the authority, including the provision of alternative land in a 60:40 ratio. He maintained that he had no involvement in these processes and had not recommended any officials for the compensation.
When questioned about the 14 plots of land awarded to his wife in 2020 as part of the compensation, Siddaramaiah once again denied any prior knowledge. He stated that he only learned about the registration of the plots after his wife had informed him, and he denied any influence in the approval or allocation process. He further emphasised that, at the time, he had not held any position of authority that would have enabled him to interfere with MUDA’s decisions.
Siddaramaiah was then asked whether he had disclosed these 14 plots in his election affidavits. He admitted that he did not recall mentioning the plots in his 2018 or 2023 election filings, adding that he had no memory of including them in any documents submitted to the Election Commission. The report also says Siddaramaiah has told Lokayukta officers that in mid-2013, his wife told him about the land donation and in a 2014 affidavit to the Karnataka Lokayukta, he had mentioned it.
As the interrogation continued, the questioning turned to the issue of amendments made in 2015 to the Karnataka Urban Development Rules, which affected compensation ratios for landowners. Siddaramaiah claimed that he was unaware of these amendments and denied recommending or influencing any changes to the rules.
The final series of questions focused on the use of government property. Siddaramaiah was asked about the government guest house allegedly used for the registration of the 14 plots. He confirmed that he had no knowledge of this and denied recommending its use for the transaction.
In the concluding part of the interrogation, Siddaramaiah was asked whether he had advised his wife to return the plots to MUDA. He stated that his wife had voluntarily decided to return the plots, citing concerns about his reputation amid the controversy. Siddaramaiah also addressed the matter of the use of a whitener in the application submitted to MUDA, expressing that he was unaware of this detail.
Finally, when asked for additional information regarding his financial assets, Siddaramaiah provided his PAN card number but could not recall any specific details about his bank accounts at that time. He concluded by stating that he had no further information to add to the case.
The interrogation revealed a pattern of denials from the Chief Minister, who consistently claimed ignorance of the various steps taken by his wife and relatives in connection with the land deal. His responses, however, left open questions about his involvement and the extent of his knowledge, particularly given his high-ranking position in the state government during the period in question.
According to observers, as the investigation continues, Siddaramaiah’s testimony remains a key piece of the puzzle in the MUDA scam case, raising more questions than answers regarding the actions of both him and his family members in the dealings.
