On Thursday, the Karnataka High Court responded to an activist's petition that contests a trial court's ruling which had cleared Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and his family of involvement in a purported land scam linked to the Mysuru Urban Development Authority.

Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav requested responses from Siddaramaiah, his spouse BM Parvathi, brother-in-law Mallikarjun Swamy, former landowner J Devaraju, the Lokayukta Police, and the Enforcement Directorate.

The activist's challenge was directed at a special court's decision made on January 28, which accepted a closure report and sought to have the investigation reassigned to an independent agency.

The controversy revolves around the allocation of 14 valuable housing plots in Mysuru's Vijaynagar area to Parvathi in 2021, facilitated by the Mysore Urban Development Authority under a government initiative.

This allocation allegedly occurred in exchange for 3.1 acres of land owned by Parvathi, which was purportedly acquired unlawfully from Dalit families.

In September 2024, the Karnataka governor sanctioned prosecution against Siddaramaiah, leading a special court to instruct the Lokayukta Police to initiate a first information report against Siddaramaiah, Parvathi, Swamy, and Devaraj.

In February 2025, the Lokayukta Police submitted a closure report, asserting insufficient evidence to substantiate corruption claims against Siddaramaiah and his associates.

However, this report was temporarily set aside to allow further investigations into broader corruption allegations.

On January 28, a special court in Bengaluru accepted the Lokayukta Police's closure report but noted that inquiries against other accused individuals would persist.

The activist has now appealed this ruling to the High Court, arguing that the special court overlooked the fact that the allegations involve misuse of a constitutional office, necessitating a thorough and independent examination rather than mere reliance on the investigating agency's opinion.

He claimed that the trial court selectively accepted closure reports for certain individuals while allowing investigations to continue against others, indicating a potential jurisdictional error and inconsistency in the proceedings.