BJP MLA moves Supreme Court to restore CBI probe against DK Shivakumar

Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Karnataka High Court's dismissal of his plea to restore a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe against Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar [Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal v. State of Karnataka and ors]..The Karnataka High Court had dismissed Yatnal's plea as not maintainable after observing that the issue concerns a Centre-State dispute since it involves a central agency (CBI). Hence, the matter could only be heard by the Supreme Court under Article 131 of the Constitution (original jurisdiction of Supreme Court in Centre-State disputes), the High Court had said. A Supreme Court Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan today expressed reservations about the High Court's approach. The top court opined that the High Court could have decided the matter on merits, instead of confining its views to the maintainability of the plea. "How come Article 131 comes here? That is between State and State. They could have decided it on merits," Justice Kant remarked.The Bench proceeded to issue notice in the matter. The top court has sought the response of both the Karnataka government and its deputy Chief Minister, DK Shivakumar and granted them liberty to file their preliminary objections. .The Karnataka High Court had on August 29 rejected two petitions, one by Yatnal and another by the CBI, challenging the Congress-led Karnataka government's decision to rescind consent for a CBI probe into allegations that Shivakumar held disproportionate assets. Yatnal has challenged this ruling before the Supreme Court. The CBI's decision not to file any such appeal before the top court (yet) was noticed by the Supreme Court Bench during the hearing today.Representing Shivakumar, Senior Advocate Dr. AM Singhvi defended the High Court's decision not to entertain the matter on merits, saying,"High Court is right, all the investigation is between the Centre and State. Also, the aggrieved person here should be CBI, the consent from whom was withdrawn.""Yes. You may be right. High Court could have said that CBI is the aggrieved party and not the other petitioner (Yatnal)," Justice Kant observed. Meanwhile, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave pointed out that the High Court has not commented at all on Yatnal's standing to file the case for it to be in dispute before the top court. "There is not even a whisper about my locus in the entire impugned Judgment," he said.The Court proceeded to issue notice in the matter. "We will see what can be done. CBI is not before us," Justice Kant added after passing the interim order. "Sometimes, CBI is also reasonable," quipped Senior Advocate SinghviDave, in a lighter vein, suggested that the Court should record this submission."I have said this for CBI, not for its sister organisation (referring to the Enforcement Directorate)," Singhvi added, in parting.Advocates Sudhanshu Prakash and Vidhi Thaker also appeared for Yatnal today. .By way of background, on September 25, 2019, the then BJP-government in Karnataka granted CBI consent to register a first information report against Shivakumar in a case involving allegations of corruption and holding of disproportionate assets.Shivakumar later moved a writ petition before a single-judge bench of the High Court challenging the same. On April 4, 2023, the plea was dismissed by the single judge, following which Shivakumar moved an appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court.Meanwhile, the Congress government came to power in the State in May 2023 and on November 28, it withdrew the consent granted to CBI for the probe. By this time, Shivakumar was also appointed the Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka.This withdrawal of consent was then challenged by the CBI as well as Yatnal before the Karnataka High Court. They also challenged the State's December 2023 decision to refer the allegations against Shivakumar to the Karnataka Lokayukta for a probe. The Karnataka High Court rejected these petitions on August 29, leading to Yatnal's appeal before the Supreme Court. .[Read Live Coverage]