Karnataka HC dismisses plea filed by relative of DK Shivakumar questioning govt "sanction" for CBI probe into money laundering case

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a close relative of former Minister DK Shivakumar questioning the "sanction" given by the state government to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe the alleged corruption charges against the Congress leader and others..The order was passed by Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy. .Factual Background.The case against DK Shivakumar stems from an income tax raid conducted in 2017. A money laundering case was registered against him pursuant to an ECIR on the basis of a complaint filed by the Income Tax authorities for offences punishable under Section 276C(1), 277 and 278 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Section 193, 199 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860..Breaking: Delhi HC grants bail to DK Shivakumar in money laundering case.The Enforcement Directorate (ED) thereby started its investigation into the matter under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and forwarded this information to the CBI. Thereafter, the ED forwarded its report to the Karnataka government in 2019 to take appropriate action for alleged violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. .The Karnataka government, under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (DPSE), granted permission to the CBI to investigate the alleged offences of corruption against Shivakumar and other officials. This permission/sanction was granted after seeking an opinion from the Advocate General of Karnataka..Copy-paste job in ED’s plea against DK Shivakumar a “tragic comedy”, Justice Rohinton Nariman.This sanction came under challenge before the Karnataka High Court..Arguments of Parties .Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi contended that the state government order is only an administrative order and is not justiciable in a court of law. He further stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the impugned order. .He also argued that the impugned government order amounts only to consent, which is totally different from a sanction to investigate or prosecute..The petitioner's primary concern was that a "sanction" to prosecute cannot be given by the state government on the basis of vague allegations and without application of mind. This contention were rejected by the Court. .What the Court held .Firstly, the Court observed that that the use of the term "sanction" in the impugned order of the state government was wrongly employed, as the action of the government to grant permission to the CBI under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 was only a "consent" to enable the CBI to investigate the offence.."In so far as the word “consent” found in Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946, it only means a “permission” of the concerned State in the Constitutional scheme of things. On the other hand, the word “sanction” found in Sections 17A and 19 of the PC Act, 1988, Section 197 in the Criminal Procedure Code inheres a thoughtful application of mind to ascertain whether the record placed before the Authority bears out enough material to proceed to prosecute. The requirement of application of mind while granting “sanction” is intended to avoid frivolous or vexatious proceedings being adopted, particularly against public servants in the discharge of their official duties."Karnataka High Court.The Single Bench further added that the grant of consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act was more of an administrative order, and hence, did not require "enormous rejigging"..On the point of locus standi, the Bench said that the petitioner had failed to establish how any of his rights were infringed or violated by the consent granted by the state government. .At this juncture, the Court further pointed out that the locus standi to challenge the impugned order can exist with the petitioner as a matter of right only when Section 6A of the DSPE Act is violated and investigation and inquiry by the CBI has commenced without prior approval of the Centre.."Thus, the petitioner may probably have a right to question any inquiry or investigation if it is commenced by the respondent No.3 without the approval of the Central Government but certainly, he has no locus standi to challenge the impugned Order of consent granted by the respondent No.1 under Section 6 of the DSPE Act, 1946.".With these observations, the Court dismissed the plea. .[Read order]