General Elections: Karnataka High Court Stays Proceedings Against Deputy CM Shivakumar For Alleged Violation Of Code Of Conduct

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday stayed further investigation in the case registered against Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar for alleged violation of the Model Code of Conduct.

It is alleged that while campaigning in rural Bengaluru, from where his brother D K Suresh is seeking re-election, the Congress leader promised water supply from contentious Cauvery river to the residents of a housing society in exchange of votes.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit ordered,

“The petitioner needs to be given reprieve till next date of hearing and accordingly the learned magistrate before whom the complaint is pending is requested not to precipitate the matter, further the R1 (police) also not to precipitate the matter till the next date of hearing.”

The complaint referred to a video where Shivakumar is allegedly trying to strike a "business deal" with the society members for over six thousand votes.

Senior Advocate Uday Holla appearing for Shivakumar argued that during election process, vote seekers (both candidate and party) tell the voters what they would be doing if their candidate is elected and that cannot be construed as inducement or undue influence under section 171 (B) & (C ) of the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted it is relevant to see how the city crowd will construe his speech.

Counsel for Election Commission resisted the petition contending that the speech as a whole would fit in parameters of Section 171 (b) (c) and therefore the act becomes punishable under section 171 (e) (f) of the Code.

Holla then informed the Court that Shivakumar was serve a notice on April 17 but before his explanation could reach the Election Commission, a complaint had been filed. EC claimed Shivakumar did not reply to the notice within 24 hours hence, there was no need for them to await longer.

However, since EC's counsel could not share the time when the explanation notice was served on Shivakumar, the bench ordered, “Having heard the counsel for parties and perused the petitioner papers, I am of the considered opinion that matter requires deeper consideration keeping in view the scope and parameters of charging section 171 (B) and 171 (C ). I am also not that sure that whatever the utterance the petitioner is stated to have made would strictly fit into the parameters of charging sections.”

It went on to remark,“...language both in terms of quality content and presentation during election campaign nowadays has fallen down abysmally low and not sure whether it can go lower, there being no scope for that. Mr Holla, when asked fairly, submits that he has advised his clients to be cautious while employing language during the election process.”

Case Title: D K SHIVAKUMAR AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR

Case No: CRL.P 3984/2024