Today, 12th July, In the DK Shivakumar disproportionate assets case, the Karnataka High Court has reserved its decision on a plea challenging the state government’s withdrawal of consent for a CBI investigation. The plea contested the government’s move to revoke its consent, which effectively halted the CBI’s involvement in the case.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court, On Monday, reserved its judgment on petitions submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal.
These petitions challenge the Karnataka state government’s decision to revoke its consent for a CBI investigation into corruption allegations involving DK Shivakumar, a prominent Congress leader and the current Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka.
The court’s decision, once delivered, will have significant implications for the ongoing controversy surrounding the state’s handling of corruption investigations and the political dynamics in Karnataka.
Read Also: Karnataka HC Criticizes Election Speeches as ‘Abysmal’| DK Shivakumar Case
A division bench comprising Justice K. Somashekhar and Justice Umesh M. Adiga reserved their decision after thoroughly hearing all the involved parties. Previously, a single judge bench had referred the matter to the division bench, noting that the case is unprecedented in the state and involves complex legal issues that necessitate examination by a larger bench.
Justices K. Somashekar and S. Rachaiah heard the arguments presented by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and CBI counsel Prasanna Kumar in the case.
Advocate Venkatesh Dalvi pointed out,
“The question before this court is whether an investigation can be annulled if the consent initially granted is later withdrawn.”
He further remarked,
“Once the CBI registers a case, it must lead to a conclusion. While proceedings can be quashed by the Supreme Court or High Court, the State and Union governments still have roles to play in the process.”
In November 2023, the Karnataka government revoked the consent previously granted to the CBI to investigate a disproportionate assets case against DK Shivakumar, asserting that the authorization was “not in accordance with the law.”
On September 25, 2019, then-Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa transferred the investigation into Shivakumar’s disproportionate assets to the CBI. However, on January 1, 2024, the case was reassigned to the Karnataka Lokayukta.
During the court proceedings, the court questioned Shivakumar’s counsel on the applicability of Article 131 in this case. Responding to Advocate Venkatesh Dalvi’s observation that a party who is not a state cannot invoke Article 131 to challenge the maintainability of the petition, Singhvi argued,
“Once the CBI begins an investigation in someone’s residence, only the CBI can proceed with the investigation. Therefore, it cannot be claimed that Section 131 is inapplicable simply because a private individual is involved.”
Singhvi further contended that there was no general consent given for the CBI’s involvement, stating,
“There is specific consent in this case, which constitutes the illegality. It does not explain why the local police or the State Lokayukta could not have handled the investigation.”
He emphasized,
“It is unprecedented for an issue that the Karnataka Lokayukta has not taken up to be directly referred to the CBI.”
Kapil Sibal, representing the Karnataka government, argued,
“Unlike civil disputes, prosecutions are conducted by the state. In civil disputes, the rights of the parties are determined by the court’s decision, so Article 131 does not apply. However, criminal prosecutions are a matter of state jurisdiction.”
Referring to DK Shivakumar’s petition in the Supreme Court seeking to quash the FIR, Sibal noted,
“The petition filed by DK Shivakumar before the single judge is under Section 482 of the CrPC, which argues that the prosecution against him is unjust and seeks to quash the FIR. The state is not involved in the act of quashing; the matter is between Shivakumar and the CBI. The state’s consent is not the focus of that petition.”
Highlighting the unique nature of the case, Sibal explained,
“There was no general consent under Section 3 of the DSP Act in this instance. The Government of Karnataka did not grant general consent. Instead, special consent was provided specifically for this case.”
CBI counsel Prasanna Kumar clarified,
“General consent under Section 5 is typically applicable, especially for cases involving central government employees. In a situation like this, where the state decides to hand over the case, it is the consent of the state government that takes precedence.”
The controversy surrounding DK Shivakumar began in August 2017 when the Income Tax (I-T) Department conducted raids on his properties across the country. At the time, Shivakumar was safeguarding 44 Congress MLAs from Gujarat at a resort near Bengaluru, aiming to prevent them from being poached by the BJP ahead of a Rajya Sabha election.
On August 2, 2017, I-T officials, accompanied by armed central police forces, entered the resort and carried out searches at 67 locations linked to Shivakumar, his family, and his associates nationwide. The I-T Department reported uncovering unaccounted cash totalling around Rs. 8.59 crore and seized properties worth several crores for further investigation.
Following the I-T Department’s chargesheet, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) launched a money laundering investigation against Shivakumar in 2018. Approximately ten days after being questioned by ED officials, Shivakumar came under the scrutiny of the CBI.
Based on the findings of the ED’s investigation, the CBI sought permission from the state government to register an FIR against Shivakumar, who was then the president of the Karnataka Congress. The state government granted permission on September 25, 2019, and on October 3, 2020, the CBI formally charged Shivakumar under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In September 2019, Shivakumar detained in Tihar Jail but granted conditional bail by the Delhi High Court a few weeks later. Shivakumar has consistently criticized the CBI’s actions, describing them as “mental harassment” and questioning the timing, particularly as they intensified before the Karnataka Assembly elections. He has argued that the CBI is applying undue pressure by repeatedly issuing notices, despite the case originating in 2020.