The Supreme Court of India on Monday (July 21, 2025) cautioned the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) about being “used” to fight “political battles” even as it dismissed appeals filed by the Central agency against a Karnataka High Court decision to set aside money-laundering charges against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife, Parvathi and State Minister Byrathi Suresh in connection with allotment of sites by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
“Do not percolate this virus across the country. Let political battles be fought before the electorate… Why are you being used…” Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, heading a Bench comprising Justice Vinod Chandran, asked the ED, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju.
As soon as the hearing began, the CJI said the ED should not even take the risk of drawing out any oral observations from the court.
“Please don’t ask us to open our mouths in this case… We have been saying since morning to not use the Supreme Court as a political platform. Otherwise, we will have to make harsh comments against the ED,” Chief Justice Gavai addressed Mr. Raju.
Earlier in the day, Chief Justice Gavai had warned an NGO against using the court to fight political battles. The NGO had moved a contempt case against West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee for her alleged remarks on the apex court’s judgment in the teacher recruitment scam case.
“Do not try to use the court as a platform for political battles. Fight somewhere else,” the CJI had said even in that case.
The High Court order had come in March after Ms. Parvathi and the State Minister challenged the ED summons. They had contended that there was no clear evidence of ‘laundering’ of ‘proceeds of crime.’ They had contended that Ms. Parvathi had surrendered 14 sites allocated to her and she was neither in possession of nor enjoying any ‘so-called proceeds of crime.’
The High Court had raised doubts about the ED’s haste in initiating proceedings on the basis of the alleged illegality in allotment of sites to various persons by MUDA, including those allotted to Ms. Parvathi.
The ED had countered that investigation was not confined to only the allegation of allotment of 14 sites to Ms. Parvathi but also on the alleged illegalities in allotment of hundreds of sites by MUDA to various individuals, including real estate businessmen, agents, officials, and various influential individuals.
The court, however, agreed to Mr. Raju’s request to record that its order would not be used a precedent.