Supreme Court Issues Notice On BJP MLA's Plea Challenging Withdrawal Of Consent For CBI Probe Against Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivakumar

The Supreme Court today issued notice on a petition filed by BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal assailing withdrawal of consent accorded by Karnataka government for CBI to prosecute Congress leader and Deputy CM DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the order, listing the matter in November. The petitioner challenged the Karnataka High Court's judgment which dismissed his petition questioning the withdrawal of consent for the CBI.

For context, dismissing two petitions filed by CBI and B Patil Yatnal, the High Court had said that the matter can be adjudicated only under Article 131 of the Constitution by the Supreme Court since it was a dispute between a State and the Union. 

“We hold that present writ petitions are not maintainable. The dispute is between the CBI representing the Union Government and the State government. Such disputes which involve Central Government authority and State government autonomy are more appropriately addressed within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioners are granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the Supreme Court."

Assailing this decision, B Patil Yatnal approached the Supreme Court, but no appeal has yet been filed by CBI.

Today, at the outset, Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi (appearing for Shivakumar) pointed out that the CBI, from whom the consent has been taken away, has not come in appeal. Rather, the petition has been filed by the private petitioner before the High Court, "who is being more royal than the king". The senior counsel alleged that the decision to take up this category of cases, to prosecute is all central government's prerogative.

These claims were refuted by Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for petitioner, who submitted that there was not even a whisper about the petitioner's locus in the impugned judgment.

Upon hearing the submissions, Justice Kant questioned the parties on the applicability of Article 131 of the Constitution. After dictating the order, the judge expressed orally, "It's always ideal if there is something on merits. Why to create this kind of suspicion in the minds of the people?"

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.

Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R. PATIL (YATNAL) Versus THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., SLP(Crl) No. 12282/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order