The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday permitted Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar to withdraw his pleas questioning the legality of sanction/consent granted to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on September 25, 2019, to investigate the ₹74.93-crore disproportionate assets case against him, after the State government on Tuesday withdrew the impugned sanction/consent.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit passed the order while disposing of the writ appeal filed by Mr. Shivakumar, who had challenged the April 20, 2023, verdict of a single judge, who had upheld the legality of the 2019 sanction.
When the Bench took up the appeal for hearing on Wednesday, the State government submitted a copy of the Government Order of November 28 withdrawing the consent.
Meanwhile, Mr. Shivakumar’s counsel too submitted a memo seeking permission to withdraw both the writ petition filed in 2020 challenging the sanction/consent granted in 2019 and the writ appeal filed by him against the single judge’s April 30, 2023 verdict of dismissing his petition and upholding the legality of sanction/consent.
Senior advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Uday Holla said that the writ petition and writ appeal had become infructuous as the September 25, 2019 sanction/consent was no more in existence in view of its withdrawal by the State government.
However, advocate P. Prasanna Kumar, appearing for the CBI, said that he had no objection for withdrawal of the writ appeal but had objections for permitting withdrawal of the writ petition itself. The CBI’s counsel said that withdrawal of sanction/consent would not affect the First Information Report (FIR) already registered in terms of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its 1994 judgment in the case of Kazi Lhendup Dorji Vs CBI.
Advocate Venkatesh P. Dalwai, appearing for Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, BJP MLA, who wanted to intervene in the proceedings, opposed the withdrawal of pleas of Mr. Shivakumar saying that withdrawal of sanction/consent when the matter of sub-judice in the writ appeal amounted to ‘interference of the government in judicial proceedings.’
However, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State government along with Advocate-General Shashi Kiran Shetty, said that the judgment cited by the CBI counsel was not applicable to the present case as facts and circumstance were different in the present case of withdrawal of sanction/consent and in the Dorji’s case.
Recording all these submissions and noting that the November 28, 2023, Government Order of withdrawal of sanction/consent had been not been challenged so far, the Bench said it could not, as per law, stop Mr. Shivakumar from withdrawing his pleas and permitted withdrawal of both the writ petition and the writ appeal without going into the issue of legality of September 25, 2019 sanction/consent or the correctness of the single judge’s April verdict.
The Bench also said that it was not making any observation on the correctness or legality of the November 28 order of withdrawal of sanction/consent as it had not been challenged before it.
Background
In 2017, the Income Tax Department conducted a raid on the premises belonging to Mr. Shivakumar, based on which the Enforcement Directorate (ED) started its probe under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Following discovery of alleged disproportionate assets during its probe, the ED wrote to the State government for conduct of investigation under the PC Act.
Later, the CBI sought sanction from the State government to register an FIR against him. Sanction for investigation was granted on September 25, 2019, and Mr. Shivakumar was booked by the CBI on October 3, 2020. He had questioned the legality of FIR but the a single judge bench had recently upheld registration of FIR and had observed that it cannot interfere when 90% per of the probe is completed.
