<p>The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) appeal in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case has come as a stinging rebuke to the agency and a much-needed reprieve for Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. </p>.<p>By refusing to entertain the ED’s challenge to the Karnataka High Court order quashing money-laundering proceedings against Siddaramaiah’s wife B M Parvathi, the apex court has sent a strong signal that investigative agencies cannot be allowed to function as political tools. </p>.<p>The bench, headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, went a step further and remarked that political battles should be fought in the electorate and not by misusing the ED. The court’s observation gives judicial credence to what has long been alleged – that the agency, instead of being a neutral guardian of economic integrity, is being abused by the Centre to settle political scores against the Opposition.</p>.<p>This is not an isolated censure. The same day, the Madras High Court slammed the ED, stating it was neither a “super cop” nor a “drone” to pounce at will on any activity it deemed criminal. Earlier, the apex court highlighted that out of the 5,000 cases taken up by ED, only a handful resulted in convictions – a dismal record that raises serious questions about the agency’s motives. </p>.<p>In the MUDA case, the ED’s charges are particularly weak. Parvathi was accused of receiving 14 prime plots valued at Rs 56 crore as compensation for her agricultural land acquired by MUDA. While the alleged irregularities in the allocation are being investigated, no money exchanged hands, and she has since returned the sites. Where, then, was the money laundering as alleged by ED? </p>.<p>The fallout of this case also has significant political implications. For weeks, there have been whispers of a political change in Karnataka, with talk that Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar might replace Siddaramaiah. Had the ED succeeded, Siddaramaiah’s position would have been severely undermined. Instead, he now stands emboldened, having taken a combative stance after the verdict.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It is also telling that several opposition-ruled states have denied consent to the CBI, citing misuse. In response, the Centre appears to be leaning more heavily on the ED, whose jurisdiction is not restricted by state permissions. This trend is deeply worrying for federalism and the rule of law. The judiciary’s intervention should prompt a re-evaluation of the ED’s role. Institutions of democracy cannot be subverted for political expediency. If the ED wants to regain credibility, it must be seen as an instrument of justice, not vengeance.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court’s decision to reject the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) appeal in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case has come as a stinging rebuke to the agency and a much-needed reprieve for Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. </p>.<p>By refusing to entertain the ED’s challenge to the Karnataka High Court order quashing money-laundering proceedings against Siddaramaiah’s wife B M Parvathi, the apex court has sent a strong signal that investigative agencies cannot be allowed to function as political tools. </p>.<p>The bench, headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai, went a step further and remarked that political battles should be fought in the electorate and not by misusing the ED. The court’s observation gives judicial credence to what has long been alleged – that the agency, instead of being a neutral guardian of economic integrity, is being abused by the Centre to settle political scores against the Opposition.</p>.<p>This is not an isolated censure. The same day, the Madras High Court slammed the ED, stating it was neither a “super cop” nor a “drone” to pounce at will on any activity it deemed criminal. Earlier, the apex court highlighted that out of the 5,000 cases taken up by ED, only a handful resulted in convictions – a dismal record that raises serious questions about the agency’s motives. </p>.<p>In the MUDA case, the ED’s charges are particularly weak. Parvathi was accused of receiving 14 prime plots valued at Rs 56 crore as compensation for her agricultural land acquired by MUDA. While the alleged irregularities in the allocation are being investigated, no money exchanged hands, and she has since returned the sites. Where, then, was the money laundering as alleged by ED? </p>.<p>The fallout of this case also has significant political implications. For weeks, there have been whispers of a political change in Karnataka, with talk that Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar might replace Siddaramaiah. Had the ED succeeded, Siddaramaiah’s position would have been severely undermined. Instead, he now stands emboldened, having taken a combative stance after the verdict.</p>.<p class="bodytext">It is also telling that several opposition-ruled states have denied consent to the CBI, citing misuse. In response, the Centre appears to be leaning more heavily on the ED, whose jurisdiction is not restricted by state permissions. This trend is deeply worrying for federalism and the rule of law. The judiciary’s intervention should prompt a re-evaluation of the ED’s role. Institutions of democracy cannot be subverted for political expediency. If the ED wants to regain credibility, it must be seen as an instrument of justice, not vengeance.</p>
