'2023 polls will be my last, won't contest from Chamundeshwari', says Siddaramaiah
Mysuru, Mar 25: Senior Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Sunday strongly reiterated that the 2023 Assembly election would be his last, and that he would not be contesting that poll from Chamundeshwari segment where he had faced defeat in 2018.
The Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly also announced that he would not be accepting any position including that of Rajya Sabha, after the term of the next Assembly.
The former Chief Minister, accusing BJP's misinformation campaign against him led to his defeat from Chamundeshwari in 2018, blamed also the failure of Congress workers in taking programmes of his government and its achievements to people and some elements within the party for the loss.
"I'm making it very very clear, you (Congress workers) to take this clearly, I will not contest from Chamundeshwari again. No one should say again that Siddaramaiah will contest from Chamundeshwari. We will make someone a candidate, ensure that he or she wins, he or she will be a Congress candidate," Siddaramaiah said.
Addressing party workers in Chamundeshwari, he said he would not contest from the constituency and asked partymen to not make such statements even to please him.
"Remove it from your head... I will not contest from here again. I'm making it very, very, very clear. In 2018, the people of Chamundeshwari left my hand, but the people of Badami have held my hands, they want me to contest from there again, so do people from Kolar, Koppal, Hunsur and Varuna, but I have still not decided. I will contest from wherever I'm asked to," he added.
Siddaramaiah said, "I will not contest again...after that (term) I will not accept any position. I will not accept if I'm asked to become Rajya Sabha member or something else."
"...Why I'm contesting, you know? This corrupt government should go. This communal government should go," he added.
Siddaramaiah, the then sitting chief minister, had lost in Chamundeshwari in 2018 to JD(S) G T Deve Gowda by a margin of over 36,042 votes.
He, however, won Badami, the other constituency from where he had contested, defeating BJP's B Sriramulu by a margin of just 1,696 votes.
Making his debut in the Assembly in 1983, Siddaramaiah had got elected from Chamundeshwari on a Lok Dal party ticket. He won five times from this constituency and lost thrice.
After neighbouring Varuna became a constituency in 2008 following delimitation, Siddaramaiah represented it till he vacated the seat for his son Dr Yatindra (MLA) in the 2018 Assembly polls and went back to his old constituency of Chamundeshwari.
Ahead of the May 2018 Assembly polls, Siddaramaiah had said it would most likely be his last election.
Earlier, during the 2013 Assembly polls, too, he had said that it was his last election and went on to become Chief Minister after the polls.
It is no secret that Siddaramaiah, who was Chief Minister between 2013-2018, is nursing his ambition for a second term in office, if the party wins the next Assembly polls.
With State Congress president D K Shivakumar, too, having similar aspirations, it has triggered a game of one-upmanship between the two.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on ED’s power to seize property without judicial oversight
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on December 12 sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by K. C. Veerendra Puppy, a sitting Karnataka MLA, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial oversight.
Veerendra Puppy is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Chitradurga Assembly constituency in Chitradurga district and was elected in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections on an Indian National Congress ticket.
A Bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar issued notice on the plea and tagged it with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA’s adjudication framework.
The petitioner has specifically challenged Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, which empower the ED to seize, freeze, and retain property for up to 180 days without furnishing reasons or granting the affected person an opportunity to contest the action during that period. She has also questioned the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, contending that it lacks members with judicial training.
ALSO READ: 9 die in Sydney shooting; police killed 1 gunman, another arrested
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha flagged a possible infirmity in the law, observing that complex issues relating to property rights and constitutional safeguards are being decided by authorities without a judicial background.
Appearing for the MLA, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar argued that the current statutory framework allows the ED to operate without effective accountability, leading to arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner claimed that all her assets, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, jewellery, and vehicles, were seized or frozen without justification and without an opportunity to be heard.
Rohatgi submitted that the challenge rests on two principal grounds: first, the ED’s power to retain property and documents for 180 days without disclosing “reasons to believe”; and second, the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member who is not legally trained.
He further pointed out that, as per data available on the ED’s official website, nearly 99 percent of attachment and retention orders are upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that it functions as a mere approving body rather than an independent adjudicatory forum.
The petition argues that these provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving individuals of equality before law and personal liberty. It contends that adjudication occurs only after the expiry of the 180-day period, when the ED seeks confirmation of retention, leaving affected persons without any remedy in the interim.
Describing the situation as a legal “vacuum” that enables arbitrary and excessive seizures, the plea urges the Court to mandate disclosure of reasons and provide for early judicial review. It also seeks directions requiring that every bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority include at least one judicial member.
ALSO READ: Fight for Indian democracy: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tells gathering at mega rally against ‘vote theft’
The MLA has relied on a 2023 Sikkim High Court judgment in Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, which directed that PMLA benches must include judicial members. That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and has been linked with the present case.
The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that when executive action affects personal liberty, the “reasons to believe” must be recorded and communicated to the affected person. The petitioner argues that this safeguard should extend to property seizures, which can severely impact livelihood and reputation.
The matter will now be heard along with other pending challenges to the PMLA, including those questioning the validity of Section 6 of the Act.
