The court adjourned the hearing on a petition challenging the withdrawal of the sanction to prosecute Shivakumar to 5 January.
Published Dec 15, 2023 | 7:58 PM ⚊ Updated Dec 15, 2023 | 7:58 PM
DK Shivakumar. (X)
The High Court of Karnataka, on Friday, 15 December, adjourned to 5 January the hearing on a petition challenging the withdrawal of the sanction to prosecute Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets case.
The Advocate General submitted that the petition quotes several other judgments that need to be studied for an appropriate response and therefore sought more time.
The Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna acceded to the request and adjourned the hearing. The petition was filed by BJP leader and MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal.
During the hearing, the court questioned how the petitioner had been affected by the government action and why a public interest litigation was not filed instead of a petition.
Yatnal’s advocate Venkatesh Dalawai argued that though there was no personal injury, any person could set a criminal proceeding in motion. The high court accepted this argument.
Based on the Income Tax Department raids and the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) probe, the CBI sought sanction from the state government to file an FIR against DK Shivakumar in 2019.
Following the change of government, the sanction was withdrawn on 28 November 2023. Challenging the 28 November order of the government withdrawing consent, Yatnal approached the high court, alleging that it was “illegal”.
The previous BJP government in Karnataka, when it was led by BS Yediyurappa, provided consent to the CBI to prosecute Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee president DK Shivakumar, on 25 September, 2019.
Subsequently, an FIR was filed against him on 3 October, 2020, marking the beginning of an investigation into alleged charges of disproportionate assets.
Shivakumar challenged the sanction before a single-judge bench of the high court, which was rejected. He then approached the division bench, which stayed the single-judge bench’s order.
The CBI filed an application for the vacation of this stay. It also approached the Supreme Court, which last month directed the high court to hear the application filed by the CBI seeking a vacation of the stay preferably within two weeks.
Meanwhile, the current Karnataka Cabinet, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, concluded on 23 November that the previous BJP government’s decision to grant consent to the CBI to investigate the DA case against Shivakumar was not in accordance with the law.
Consequently, the cabinet decided to withdraw the sanction, and a Government Order (GO) to this effect was issued.
Attending the hearing virtually, senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Shivakumar, argued that since the challenged sanction had been withdrawn by the government, the matter had become moot. Singhvi stated that he had instructions to withdraw the appeal.
The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, permitted Shivakumar’s counsel to file a memo formally withdrawing the appeal.
The court then recorded that, according to the memo, the writ petition had become infructuous in light of the GO dated 23 November. The court disposed of the appeal, acknowledging its withdrawal.
While the court granted permission for withdrawal, it did not provide any observations on the status of the FIR that had been filed by the CBI subsequent to the sanction and the partially completed investigation.
Meanwhile, the CBI counsel on 29 November questioned in the high court the legality of the state government’s decision to withdraw the sanction given to it to investigate the DA case.
The CBI counsel emphasised the need to keep the question open, stating opposition to the withdrawal memo. The high court, however, refrained from making any definitive statements on the matter.
Acknowledging the CBI’s opposition, the court mentioned the absence of a challenge to the government’s subsequent decision and rejected the submission.
The state government withdrew the sanction before the Division Bench’s hearing, prompting Shivakumar’s counsel to argue that the appeal was now infructuous.
The state government, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, asserted the withdrawal of consent and challenged the CBI’s jurisdiction.
Sibal argued: “At the moment we have withdrawn consent. If the CBI thinks they have jurisdiction, they can continue. If they want to challenge it, they are welcome to.”
He added: “But the statute does not give them power. If they think they have the power, they are welcome to challenge it (Statute). As far as I am concerned, they have no jurisdiction.”
The CBI’s counsel questioned the legality of withdrawing consent during an ongoing investigation, citing a Supreme Court order on prospective nature.
The division bench insisted that challenges to the withdrawal order must be raised to be considered.
The court clarified it couldn’t delve into the legality of the withdrawal, stating it was not within its domain to question why the CBI hadn’t challenged the order.
Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar defended himself on 29 November, asserting that he committed no wrongdoing and solely focused on party responsibilities despite facing challenges.
Asked about the court proceedings, Shivakumar maintained that he lacked information and refrained from commenting without guidance from his legal counsel. He stressed the importance of staying away from court matters.
Addressing BJP leader Basanagouda Patil Yatnal’s intervention challenging the state government’s withdrawal of consent for the CBI probe, Shivakumar remained composed, stating that he would respond at an opportune time, having observed comments with humility.
Asked about perceiving the court development as a relief, the deputy chief minister asserted, “People have witnessed; I have committed no wrongdoing.”
Emphasising his dedication to party work, he acknowledged enduring challenges and expressed confidence in divine intervention and the support of the state’s people, referencing past events in the state, possibly alluding to assembly poll results. He extended gratitude to those who stood by him and offered prayers.
(With PTI inputs)
