SC notice to Karnataka govt, Shivakumar on withdrawal of consent to CBI in graft case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set out to examine the validity of the Karnataka government’s decision to withdraw consent given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to prosecute deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar in a corruption case after the Karnataka high court refused to interfere with the same.
A bench headed by justice Surya Kant issued notice on the petition filed by a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislator Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal challenging the withdrawal order issued by the Siddaramaiah government on November 28 last year. The decision to grant consent was taken in 2019 by the then BS Yeddyurappa government.
The apex court sought responses of the Karnataka government and Shivakumar.
Patil had earlier approached the high court, which dismissed his petition on August 29, holding that the issue of grant of sanction is a Centre-state issue and must be addressed before the top court.
The top court was initially not convinced by the HC’s reasoning observing that the matter ought to have been decided either way on merits. Patil had not added CBI in its petition and in the absence of any appeal by CBI against the HC order, the top court bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan, said: “We will see what can be done.”
Shivakumar was represented in court by senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi who held the HC judgment to be correct. He said, “The high court is correct in observing it is an investigation between the Centre and state. At best, the aggrieved person should be the CBI from whom consent is withdrawn.”
As CBI was yet to appeal against the HC order, Singhvi said, “Sometimes CBI is reasonable.” He added a caveat, “I have said this for CBI, not for its sister organisation (referring to the Enforcement Directorate).”
The bench agreed with Singhvi. “You may be right. The HC could have said that the CBI and not the present petitioner is the aggrieved party.” Patil’s lawyer senior advocate Siddharth Dave that the HC judgment makes “not even a whisper about my right to maintain the appeal”. He said that the withdrawal of consent was purely a malafide action by the state to protect its own ministers.
The then BJP government had in September 2019 granted sanction under section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE) that paved the way for Shivakumar’s prosecution in an alleged disproportionate assets case.
According to CBI, the wealth of Shivakumar and his family saw an almost 45% increase during his term as member of legislative assembly (MLA) between 2013 and 2018. The amount found to be disproportionate to his known sources of income was valued at ₹74.93 lakh.
The case emanated from an income tax search at Shivakumar’s residence in 2017 that led to the recovery of a little over ₹41 lakh. A case was registered against the Congress leader and others under provisions of the Income Tax act and section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of Indian Penal Code. This became the basis for the ED to launch separate proceedings.
In September 2019, ED wrote to the state, sharing leads from the probe and requested it to initiate an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Later, the state government granted CBI sanction to prosecute him in the case. Following this, the CBI filed a preliminary enquiry against Shivakumar and two others in March 2020.