A BJP MLA approached the Supreme Court seeking to reinstate the CBI probe against Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case. The petition challenges the Congress-led Karnataka government’s decision to withdraw consent for the investigation. The MLA argues that halting the probe undermines accountability.
New Delhi: Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal approached the Supreme Court, challenging the Karnataka High Court’s dismissal of his plea to restore a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.
The High Court dismissed the plea as not maintainable, stating that the matter pertained to a Centre-State dispute, as it involved a central agency (CBI), and could only be heard by the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Asks Suspended BJP MLA’s: Will You Apologize to LG?
A Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, expressed concerns about the High Court’s decision, suggesting that the matter should have been addressed on its merits rather than on maintainability grounds.
Justice Kant remarked,
“How come Article 131 comes here? That is between State and State. They could have decided it on merits.”
The bench then issued notice, seeking a response from both the Karnataka government and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar, while allowing them the option to file preliminary objections.
On August 29, the Karnataka High Court rejected two petitions one by BJP leader Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal and another by the CBI challenging the Congress-led Karnataka government’s decision to revoke consent for a CBI probe into allegations of disproportionate assets against DK Shivakumar.
Yatnal now appealed this ruling to the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the Supreme Court noted that the CBI has not yet filed a similar appeal.
Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi, representing Shivakumar, defended the High Court’s stance, stating,
“The High Court is right; the investigation is between the Centre and State. The aggrieved party here should be the CBI, whose consent was withdrawn.”
Justice Surya Kant acknowledged this point, remarking,
“Yes, you may be right. The High Court could have said that CBI is the aggrieved party, not the other petitioner (Yatnal).”
Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave also highlighted that the High Court did not address Yatnal’s standing to bring the case, stating,
“There is not even a whisper about my locus in the entire impugned judgment.”
The Supreme Court issued notice in the matter.
Justice Surya Kant, after issuing the interim order, remarked,
“We will see what can be done. The CBI is not before us.”
In response, Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi quipped, “Sometimes, the CBI is also reasonable.”
In a lighter moment, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave suggested that the Court should record Singhvi’s comment.
Singhvi added humorously,
“I have said this for the CBI, not for its sister organization (referring to the Enforcement Directorate).”
Advocates Sudhanshu Prakash and Vidhi Thaker also represented Yatnal during the proceedings.
Read Also: Hate Speech Against Rahul Gandhi|| BJP MLA Y Bharath Shetty Granted Anticipatory Bail
As background, on September 25, 2019, the BJP-led Karnataka government granted the CBI consent to file an FIR against DK Shivakumar for allegations of corruption and disproportionate assets. Shivakumar later challenged this in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a single judge on April 4, 2023. He then appealed to a Division Bench.
After the Congress government took power in May 2023, it withdrew the CBI’s consent for the probe in November. By then, Shivakumar had become the Deputy Chief Minister. The CBI and Yatnal challenged the withdrawal, as well as the decision to refer the allegations to the Karnataka Lokayukta, but their petitions rejected by the Karnataka High Court on August 29, leading to Yatnal’s current appeal before the Supreme Court.