Advocate Venkatesh Dalvi noted that the "Question before this court is once consent is granted even if withdrawn can the investigation be annulled."
Published Aug 12, 2024 | 6:10 PM ⚊ Updated Aug 12, 2024 | 6:10 PM
DK Shivakumar. (X)
The Karnataka High Court on Monday, 12 August, reserved its order on the petitions challenging the state government’s decision to withdraw consent for the CBI probe into corruption allegations against Congress leader and Karnataka’s Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.
Justices K Somashekar and S Rachaiah heard the arguments in the case by senior counsel Kapil Sibal, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and CBI counsel Prasanna Kumar
Advocate Venkatesh Dalvi noted that the “Question before this court is once consent is granted even if withdrawn can the investigation be annulled.”
He further noted: “Once CBI registers registers a case it has to culminate into something. Proceedings can be quashed by Supreme Court or High Court but State and Union governments have a role to play in it. ”
The Karnataka government in November 2023 withdrew the sanction granted to the CBI, to investigate a disproportionate case against DK Shivakumar, saying it was “not in accordance with the law”.
On 25 September, 2019, the then chief minister BS Yediyurappa handed over Shivakumar’s disproportionate asset case to CBI.
On 1 January, 2024, the case was transferred to Lokayukta from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
As reported by the Bar and Bench, the court asked Shivakumar’s counsel, what is his argument on the point of whether Article 131 is applicable to this case.
Singhvi, Shivakumar’s counsel, responding to advocate Venkatesh Dalvi, who observed that, “A party who is not a state but is party to a petition cannot invoke Article 131 saying petition filed is not maintainable,” noted, “Once the CBI enters someone’s house for an investigation, only the CBI investigates. So it can’t be said that just because a private person is involved, Section 131 will not be applicable.”
Further stating that there is no general consent, Singhvi said, “There is a specific consent which is precisely the illegality. It doesn’t tell you why the local police or the State Lokayukta can’t take up the issue for investigation.”
“It has never happened before that there has been an issue that the Karnataka Lokayukta hasn’t taken up and it has gone to the CBI straightaway.”
Kapil Sibal appearing on behalf of the Karnataka government argued, “Unlike Civil disputes prosecution are by State. When you come to a civil dispute rights of parties are governed by the determination of the court, so Article 131 will not lie. When it comes to criminal prosecution it is by the state.”
Referring to Shivakumar’s petition in the Supreme Court to quash the FIR, Sibal noted, “The petition filed before the single judge by DK Shivakumar is under section 482 CrPC which says prosecution against me is not correct and to quash FIR. The state has nothing to do with quashing. The parties are Shivakumar and CBI. The state is not a party, consent is not the subject matter of that petition.”
Noting it as a special case, Sibal reasoned as, “There is no General consent under Sec 3 of the DSP Act. In this case, there was no general consent by GoK. Then what happened the special consent was given only in this case.”
CBI counsel Prasanna Kumar clarified, “General consent under section 5 is first it is true, against central govt employees. In a case of this nature where the state would decide to entrust the case, it is the state government consent that would come first.”
The Shivakumar controversy unfolded in August 2017 when the Income Tax (I-T) Department conducted raids on his premises across the country.
During this period, Shivakumar was protecting 44 Congress MLAs from Gujarat at a resort near Bengaluru to prevent potential poaching attempts by the BJP before a Rajya Sabha election.
The I-T officials, accompanied by armed central police forces, entered the resort on August 2, 2017, and conducted searches at 67 locations connected to Shivakumar, his family, and friends all over the country.
The I-T Department reported discovering unaccounted-for cash amounting to approximately ₹8.59 crore and attached properties worth crores for further investigation.
Following the chargesheet by the I-T Department, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) initiated a money laundering probe against Shivakumar in 2018.
About 10 days after facing questioning by the ED officials, Shivakumar came under scrutiny by the CBI.
Relying on the ED’s investigative findings, the CBI sought permission from the state government to file an FIR against the Congress state president.
The sanction was granted on September 25, 2019, and on October 3, 2020, Shivakumar was formally booked by the CBI under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In September 2019, he was incarcerated in Tihar Jail but obtained conditional bail from the Delhi High Court a few weeks later.
Shivakumar has consistently criticised the CBI’s actions, denouncing them as “mental harassment” and questioning their timing, especially in the lead-up to the Karnataka Assembly polls. He argued that the CBI, through repeated notices, is exerting undue pressure despite the case originating in 2020.
(Edited by Sumavarsha Kandula, with inputs from Nolan Patrick Pinto)
