Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka heard two writ petitions challenging the State Government's orders dated 28.11.2023 and 22.12.2023 withdrawing consent for an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against Shri D.K. Shivakumar, the Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka. The first petition was filed by Shri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal), a Member of Legislative Assembly, and the second by the CBI itself. The investigation originated from an Income Tax search on 02.08.2017, where unaccounted cash of Rs.8.59 crores was recovered. The Directorate of Enforcement registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the State Government had originally granted consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, on 25.09.2019, leading to an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Shri Shivakumar had challenged the FIR in a writ petition which was dismissed, and a writ appeal was pending when the State Cabinet decided to withdraw the consent. The petitioner in the first writ petition, who had intervened in the writ appeal, argued that the withdrawal was arbitrary, malafide, and against public interest, violating Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution. He contended that he had locus standi as a citizen and an intervenor, and that the principles of Section 321 CrPC should apply to prevent stifling of the prosecution. The CBI also sought quashing of the withdrawal orders. The matters were heard together and reserved for judgment on 12.08.2024. The Court delivered a common order on 29.08.2024, but the operative part of the order is not available in the extracted text. Thus, the final decision and reasoning of the Court could not be captured.
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the withdrawal of consent for CBI investigation by the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is arbitrary, malafide, and contrary to law? 2. Whether the petitioner has locus standi to challenge such withdrawal? 3. Whether the withdrawal of consent interferes with ongoing investigation and judicial proceedings? 4. Whether the impugned Government Orders are liable to be quashed?
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (08) 19
Writ Petition No. 27220 of 2023 (GM-RES) connected with Writ Petition No. 670 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Justice K. Somashekar, Justice Umesh M Adiga
For W.P.27220/2023: Sri Dalwai Venkatesh; For CBI: Sri P Prasanna Kumar; For State: Sri Kapil Sibal (Sr. Counsel), Sri K. Shashikiran Shetty (AG), Smt. Mamatha Shetty (AGA), Sri Jagadeesha B N (Addl. SPP), Sri Ismail Zabiulla (AAG), Sri Adit S Pujari, Smt. Rachel Raju Alice; For D K Shivakumar: Dr. Abhishek Singhvi (Sr. Counsel), Sri Uday Holla (Sr. Counsel), Sri Mayank Jain, Sri Madhur Jain, Sri Arpit Goel, Sri Sidharth Seim; For Karnataka Lokayukta: Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti
Sri Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) and Central Bureau of Investigation
State of Karnataka, Deputy Secretary to Government Home Department, Central Bureau of Investigation, Sri D K Shivakumar, Additional Director General of Police Karnataka Lokayukta, and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the State Government's orders withdrawing consent for investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of Government Orders dated 28.11.2023 and 22.12.2023, and a direction to the CBI to continue the investigation and submit a final report.
Filing Reason
Allegation that the withdrawal of consent was arbitrary, malafide, and intended to protect the respondent D.K. Shivakumar from investigation into disproportionate assets and money laundering.
Previous Decisions
Earlier, D.K. Shivakumar had filed W.P. No. 10479/2020 challenging the FIR, which was dismissed on 20.04.2023. A writ appeal W.A. No. 646/2023 was filed and pending when the State Cabinet decided to withdraw consent. The petitioner in W.P.27220/2023 had filed an intervening application in the writ appeal. The writ appeal was subsequently allowed to be withdrawn.
Issues
Whether the State Government's withdrawal of consent for CBI investigation under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is arbitrary, malafide, and legally unsustainable?
Whether the petitioner in W.P. No. 27220/2023 has locus standi to challenge the withdrawal of consent?
Whether the withdrawal of consent interferes with an ongoing investigation and judicial proceedings, thereby violating Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution?
Whether the High Court can quash the impugned Government Orders and direct the CBI to continue the investigation?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner in W.P. 27220/2023 (Shri Basanagouda R. Patil) contended: The withdrawal of consent was arbitrary, malafide, and against public interest, tailored to benefit the respondent D.K. Shivakumar; The State Government violated Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution; The withdrawal interferes with ongoing investigation and judicial proceedings; Petitioner has locus standi as an intervenor in the writ appeal and as a citizen/MLA; Any person can initiate criminal proceedings for cognizable offences, and the petitioner should be treated as a de facto complainant; Principles of Section 321 CrPC regarding withdrawal of prosecution should apply to such withdrawal of consent; Reliance placed on PSR Sadhanatham v. Arunachalam, A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Srinivas, V.S. Achutanandan v. R. Balakrishna Pillai, etc.
Central Bureau of Investigation sought quashing of the impugned Government Orders as illegal and violative of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act; detailed arguments not extracted in the provided text.
Judgment Excerpts
As common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in both these petitions, they are heard together and are disposed of by this common order.
The investigation pertains to a case registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, following an income tax search conducted on 02.08.2017 that revealed a significant amount of unaccounted cash.
Procedural History
An Income Tax search was conducted on 02.08.2017 at the premises of Shri D.K. Shivakumar, leading to recovery of unaccounted cash. The Directorate of Enforcement registered a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. On 09.09.2019, ED sought consent from the Karnataka State Government under Section 66(2) of the PMLA, and the State Government granted consent on 25.09.2019, culminating in registration of an FIR against Shri Shivakumar. Shri Shivakumar filed W.P. No. 10479/2020 challenging the FIR, which was dismissed on 20.04.2023. He then filed W.A. No. 646/2023. While the writ appeal was pending, on 24.11.2023, it was reported that the State Cabinet had decided to withdraw the consent for CBI investigation. Formal Government Orders were issued on 28.11.2023 and 22.12.2023. Shri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) filed an intervening application in the writ appeal. The High Court allowed Shri Shivakumar to withdraw both the writ appeal and the writ petition. Subsequently, W.P. No. 27220/2023 was filed by Shri Basanagouda R. Patil challenging the withdrawal orders, and W.P. No. 670/2024 was filed by the CBI seeking similar reliefs. The matters were heard together, arguments concluded, and judgment was reserved on 12.08.2024. The common order was pronounced on 29.08.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002: Section 66(2)
- Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Section 6
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 13(1)(e)
- Income Tax Act, 1961:
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 154, 200, 321, 483
- Constitution of India: Articles 141, 144, 226, 227
