What’s Next for the MUDA Case? Lokayukta Requests Extension; Special Court Defers Hearing to May 29

Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- The Special Court has postponed the MUDA case hearing to May 29.
- The Karnataka Lokayukta requested additional time for the investigation.
- Concerns about evidence tampering have been raised by the petitioner.
- The ED has filed objections to the closure report.
- Transparency in investigations is crucial for public trust.
Bengaluru, May 7 (NationPress) The Special Court designated for MLAs and MPs has postponed the hearing regarding the petition that contests the closure report against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) matter until May 29.
This delay came after a request from the Karnataka Lokayukta, seeking additional time to finalize the report in this case.
On April 15, the Special Court had indicated that any decision on the closure report concerning CM Siddaramaiah would only occur following the conclusion of the Lokayukta investigation.
In the meantime, petitioner Snehamayi Krishna filed a request with the court under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), claiming that investigators are intentionally stalling the submission of the final report related to the MUDA case.
“I fear that the evidence might be altered or destroyed. Thus, I urge the court to regard the submitted report as final, acknowledge my objections and documents, allow me to present my arguments, and issue suitable orders,” he stated.
He further asserted in his petition that there is minimal chance of the Lokayukta police filing charges against the primary accused, CM Siddaramaiah, and others who have already been exonerated in the interim report.
The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has also lodged its objection to the closure report in the MUDA case involving CM Siddaramaiah, his spouse, and others.
The court previously remarked that the Lokayukta investigation remains incomplete. Additionally, it directed the Lokayukta to submit its final report post-investigation by May 7.
"While the Lokayukta has submitted a closure report, it simultaneously states that the investigation should persist. Therefore, let the inquiry continue," the court stated.
"It is fitting to evaluate the objection petition once the investigation reaches its conclusion," the court concluded.
Furthermore, the court determined that the ED may file an objection petition in relation to the Lokayukta investigation. The Lokayukta's counsel argued that the ED cannot claim to be an aggrieved party in this matter.