The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petitions submitted by the CBI and BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal, which sought to overturn the State government's decision to revoke consent for a CBI investigation into corruption allegations against Congress leader and Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.

On August 12, a division bench comprising Justice K. Somashekhar and Justice Umesh M. Adiga reserved its order on the petitions filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation and BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal. These petitions challenged the State government's decision to withdraw consent for a CBI investigation into corruption allegations against Congress leader and Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar.

It said “The dispute essentially involves a conflict between the state government and CBI which operates under the supreintence of the Central Government. The issue raised concerned the statutory provisions like the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, and Prevention of Money Laundering Act and the relationship within Constitutional provisions in regards to division of powers between state and central government.”

“We hold that present writ petitions are not maintainable. The dispute is between the CBI representing the Union Government and the State government. Such disputes which involve Central Government authority and State government autonomy are more appropriately addressed within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed as not maintainable. Petitioners are granted liberty to pursue appropriate remedies before the Supreme Court," it added.

A single-judge bench had previously referred the case to a division bench, noting that it was a unique case in the State and that the complexity of the legal issues involved warranted examination by a larger bench.

CBI counsel Prasanna Kumar argued that under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court has held that once the State government grants consent for an investigation, it cannot be withdrawn, and certainly not with retrospective effect.

Additionally, he explained that the State government grants general consent to the CBI to investigate FIRs against central government employees within the state. In situations where the State government requests the CBI to probe a case against an individual, this general consent is provided in conjunction with the request.

Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai, representing Patil, argued that the special leave petition filed by the petitioner (Kumar) challenging the single-judge bench’s decision to quash the offense had been dismissed. Consequently, he contended that it has effectively merged with the single-judge bench's ruling.

Referring to Article 131 of the Constitution of India, he said “There is no question of writ petition not being maintainable. My petition is maintainable. the submission of R3 that the petition is not maintainable is not maintainable.”

He had added “The question before this court is once consent is granted even if withdrawn can the investigation FIR registered by the CBI be annulled. Article 131 will not be applicable to this case because there are a combination of parties here and all are necessary parties not formal parties.”

Finally, he stated that once the CBI registers a case, it must proceed to a final report. While the Supreme Court or High Court can quash the proceedings, neither the State nor the Union Governments have a role in this process.

Both the CBI and the counsel for an intervenor argued that the Government Order (GO) was motivated by a desire to protect the interests of the Congress leader.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the state government, challenged the maintainability of the petitions. He questioned the petitioners' reliance on the Supreme Court judgment that dismissed DK Shivakumar's case, arguing, "The petition filed before the single judge by DK Shivakumar was under Section 482 CrPC, which seeks to quash the FIR on the grounds of improper prosecution. The State has no involvement in this quashing process. The parties in that petition were Shivakumar and the CBI. The State was not a party, and consent was not the subject matter of that petition."

It was contended that in this case, the state (under the previous government) committed a fraud on the court regarding the manner in which consent was obtained. It was argued that consent was granted by the previous government based on oral directions, and now that the government has changed, the current administration cannot come before the court to alter that consent.

Finally, he said, “The question before the court is not about the withdrawal of consent but it is a question of illegality of consent.” He added, “If the Central Government is aggrieved then it can file Article 131 plea.”

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Shivakumar, also objected to the maintainability of the petitions. He argued that the CBI's challenge to the withdrawal of consent is a matter that pertains solely to the dispute between the Central and State governments, and thus should not be subject to the current proceedings.

Case Title: BASANAGOUDA R PATIL (YATNAL) AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 27220/2023 c/w WP 670/2024.