The Karnataka Lok Ayukta’s inability to find evidence against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his wife in the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam is not just a failure—it’s a glaring miscarriage of justice. Despite extensive media reports highlighting questionable land allotments and irregularities, the anti-corruption watchdog conveniently found nothing substantial to indict the state’s most powerful political figure. This raises a critical question: was the investigation compromised from the start? The MUDA scam revolves around the alleged illegal allocation of prime real estate, benefitting the Chief Minister’s family. When the controversy erupted, opposition parties and activists demanded a fair probe. But instead of transferring the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which could have conducted an independent inquiry, the Karnataka High Court allowed the Lok Ayukta to handle the matter. This decision sealed the fate of the case, ensuring it would remain within the control of the state machinery. The Lok Ayukta’s track record in high-profile cases involving ruling politicians has been dismal. With limited powers and political interference, it has repeatedly failed to act as an independent watchdog. It’s no surprise, then, that its investigation into the MUDA scam produced no damning evidence against the CM and his wife. But does that mean there was no wrongdoing, or just that the system ensured nothing came to light?
The blame for this travesty lies at multiple levels. First, the Lok Ayukta itself failed in its duty. Tasked with upholding accountability, it has instead become a toothless institution, hesitant to challenge the political establishment. Second, the Karnataka High Court’s reluctance to hand the case over to the CBI was a grave error. Given the high stakes, an external and independent probe was the only way to ensure a fair investigation. Yet, the court’s decision effectively shielded the Chief Minister and his family from deeper scrutiny. Then there’s the role of the ruling establishment. Any probe against a sitting CM faces immense political pressure, but when the investigating body reports directly to the state government, impartiality is a pipe dream. The Congress government in Karnataka had every reason to ensure the case did not reach the CBI, which could have exposed damaging details. Finally, the public and the opposition must also share some blame. While media houses did their part by exposing key facts, there was no sustained public outrage demanding an independent inquiry. Without pressure from citizens, institutions like the High Court and Lok Ayukta can easily brush off such cases. The failure of the Lok Ayukta in the MUDA scam is a grim reminder of how the system protects the powerful. Unless there is a fundamental overhaul of our investigative institutions, political corruption will continue to thrive, shielded by bureaucratic indifference and judicial reluctance. Justice in Karnataka, it seems, is reserved for those without political connections.