Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah firmly stated on Sunday that he would not resign or compromise his principles in response to opposition calls for his resignation following allegations related to the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) land scam. The anti-corruption agency registered a case against him on September 27 after the Karnataka High Court directed the Lokayukta police to investigate claims that his wife, Parvathi, received premium properties in violation of regulations.

While inaugurating several development projects in Mysuru, Siddaramaiah asserted, “I will not resign or bend for anyone. Mahatma Gandhi said that there are courts and then there is conscience, which is above all courts. My conscience is clear, and as long as I have the people's support, I will not be shaken.” He emphasized his determination not to be intimidated by political challenges and expressed confidence in his ability to navigate and overcome any hurdles that may arise.

The allegations stem from claims that the Mysuru development body acquired land from Siddaramaiah’s wife and compensated her with plots of higher value. The opposition, particularly the BJP, along with certain activists, has accused the couple of benefiting from this alleged “illegal” deal, estimating the irregularities at around ₹4,000 crore.

In August, Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot approved the prosecution of the Chief Minister. The Karnataka High Court later upheld this sanction. The Special Court for criminal cases involving current and former MPs and MLAs subsequently directed the Lokayukta police to investigate a complaint filed by RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna.

This complaint alleges that Siddaramaiah’s wife received compensatory plots in a prime Mysuru area that had significantly higher property values than the land acquired by MUDA. Under MUDA’s 50:50 ratio scheme, she was allotted plots in exchange for 3.16 acres of land, although there are allegations that she lacked legal title to that land in Kasare village.

Siddaramaiah has categorically denied these allegations, maintaining that the land transaction adhered to all legal requirements and that no irregularities occurred.