Supreme Court Dismisses Karnataka Deputy CM DK Shivakumar’s Petition in Disproportionate Assets Case

Justices Emphasize Separate Offence Under Prevention of Corruption Act; DK Shivakumar Accuses BJP of Political Vendetta.

Top Court Rejects Plea Challenging High Court’s Refusal to Quash CBI Investigation

New Delhi – The Supreme Court today dismissed Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar’s petition challenging a Karnataka High Court order that had rejected his plea to quash the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)’s case against him for alleged disproportionate assets under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). A bench comprising Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma heard the matter.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Shivakumar, argued that the investigation commenced without the required sanction under Section 17A of the PCA, and contended that whether Section 17A applies to offences committed before the 2018 amendment was still unresolved and referred to a larger bench. However, Justice Trivedi responded that the proceedings could not be quashed based on a split verdict.

Justice Trivedi further noted the allegation that Rs. 41 lakhs were recovered from DK Shivakumar, to which Rohatgi clarified that this was an allegation under the Income Tax Act, not the PCA. Rohatgi argued that a CBI FIR on the same issue was not permissible. Disagreeing, Justice Trivedi emphasized that the case pertained to a separate offence under the PCA and that Income Tax authorities could not prosecute under the PCA.

The bench also expressed disapproval of the High Court’s order staying the sanction accorded to the CBI. “How can the High Court stay sanction? This is unheard of,” remarked Justice Trivedi. The counsels for Shivakumar informed the bench that the Karnataka government had withdrawn the consent accorded to the CBI.

Background of the case

In August 2017, the Income Tax department conducted raids at various premises of Shivakumar in New Delhi and other locations, collecting a total of Rs. 8,59,69,100, out of which Rs. 41 lakhs were allegedly recovered from Shivakumar’s premises. Following this, a case was registered against Shivakumar under provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which led the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to register a case and arrest him on September 3, 2019. Subsequently, the Karnataka government accorded sanction to the CBI for investigation under the PCA.

Shivakumar challenged the sanction and proceedings against him in the Karnataka High Court. In April 2023, a single judge bench dismissed his petition but granted temporary relief by staying the CBI probe on multiple occasions. This dismissal led Shivakumar to appeal before a division bench. The CBI challenged the interim orders through a special leave petition, but the Supreme Court refused to entertain the agency’s plea, considering them as ‘purely interlocutory’ orders.

In October 2023, the Supreme Court issued notice on a plea by the CBI challenging the Karnataka High Court’s June 2023 order, which stayed the investigation against Shivakumar in the disproportionate assets case. This plea was dismissed in November 2023, with the High Court requested to consider the CBI’s application for vacating the stay and the pending appeal preferably within two weeks.

Thereafter, the Karnataka government withdrew consent accorded to the CBI, and the High Court permitted Shivakumar to withdraw his petition challenging the consent to prosecute him.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s dismissal, DK Shivakumar accused the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of orchestrating the scams. “All of the scams have been created by the Bharatiya Janata Party. The BJP tenure is the father of scams which is why they have been thrown out by people. Now, we are trying to clean up everything. They aren’t able to digest this since their names will come out,” Shivakumar stated.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battle surrounding DK Shivakumar’s alleged disproportionate assets case, with the CBI now set to conclude its investigation and file its report within three months as directed by the High Court.

Show More

Leave a Reply

Back to top button