'Before Us For Political Mileage?' : Supreme Court To BJP MLA Challenging Karnataka Govt's Withdrawal Of CBI Consent To Probe DK Shivakumar
![Before Us For Political Mileage? : Supreme Court To BJP MLA Challenging Karnataka Govts Withdrawal Of CBI Consent To Probe DK Shivakumar Before Us For Political Mileage? : Supreme Court To BJP MLA Challenging Karnataka Govts Withdrawal Of CBI Consent To Probe DK Shivakumar](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2023/05/17/1500x900_472619-dk-shivakumar.webp)
Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court questioned today the political motives of BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal behind assailing withdrawal of consent accorded by Karnataka government for CBI to prosecute Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case."Why you are, for political mileage, before the Supreme Court? Go there in political field and contest...
Justice Surya Kant of the Supreme Court questioned today the political motives of BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal behind assailing withdrawal of consent accorded by Karnataka government for CBI to prosecute Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case.
"Why you are, for political mileage, before the Supreme Court? Go there in political field and contest the election...", the judge remarked.
The comment came while a bench of Justices Kant and N Kotiswar Singh was dealing with Yatnal's challenge to the Karnataka High Court's judgment which dismissed his petition questioning the withdrawal of consent for the CBI. A plea by CBI challenging the withdrawal of consent was also listed before the Court.
Responding to the remark, Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for Yatnal) said that it was not a case of political vendetta. Rather, he urged, there was a substantial point involved insofar as the Congress party, after coming into power in Karnataka, withdrew consent given to CBI by the erstwhile government to probe the present Deputy CM DK Shivakumar.
On behalf of CBI and DK Shivakumar, the Court was informed that the respective affidavits have been filed and the matter can proceed after Karnataka government files its counter-affidavit. Noting that there was no urgency, the matter was adjourned to March 26.
Background
To recap, the Income Tax department had carried out a raid in August 2017 at various premises of Shivakumar in New Delhi and other places. It collected a total of Rs.8,59,69,100, out of which Rs.41 lakhs were allegedly recovered from Shivakumar's premises.
Subsequently, a case was registered against Shivakumar before the Special Court for Economic Offences under provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Based upon the income tax case, ED also registered a case and Shivakumar was arrested on September 3, 2019.
On 09.09.2019, ED issued a letter to the Karnataka government under Section 66(2) of PMLA. Following the same, sanction against Shivakumar was accorded and the matter referred to CBI for investigation.
Shivakumar moved the Karnataka High Court challenging the sanction and proceedings against him. In April, a single judge bench dismissed his petition, but during the course of the hearing, granted the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee chief temporary relief by staying the CBI probe on multiple occasions. The single judge's dismissal led Shivakumar to file an appeal before a division bench.
The interim orders were challenged by CBI through a special leave petition, but the Supreme Court in July refused to entertain the agency's plea arising out of 'purely interlocutory' orders.
Subsequently, in October, the top Court issued notice on a plea by CBI challenging Karnataka High Court's June 2023 order which stayed investigation against Shivakumar in the disproportionate assets case. This plea was ultimately dismissed on 10th November, however, the High Court was requested to consider the application filed by CBI for vacating the stay granted and the appeal pending before it preferably within 2 weeks.
Be that as it may, after the Congress party formed the Karnataka government in May 2023, the state government withdrew consent accorded to CBI and the High Court permitted Shivakumar to withdraw his petition challenging the consent to prosecute him.
In August, 2024, the Karnataka High Court dismissed petitions filed by CBI and Yatnal challenging the Karnataka government's decision to withdraw the consent for CBI probe. Aggrieved by this decision, both CBI and Yatnal approached the Supreme Court.
Appearance: Senior Advocate K Parmeswar (for Yatnal); Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (for DK Shivakumar)
Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R. PATIL (YATNAL) Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 12282/2024