Today, the Karnataka High Court granted Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar permission to retract his appeal against a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into a corruption case. This decision was influenced by the recent move of the State government, currently led by the Congress, to revoke its consent for the CBI investigation.

The division bench of Chief Justice PB Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit took note of Shivakumar's argument that the writ appeal had become obsolete as it hinged on the State's authorization for a CBI investigation, a consent that has since been retracted.

The Court concluded the case based on these terms, yet not without the judges expressing concern regarding how such determinations seemed to be influenced by changing political administrations.

The CBI's investigation into Shivakumar revolves around alleged irregularities in mining and real estate operations. Initially, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) filed a case against Shivakumar under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, leading to his arrest on September 3, 2019. However, following an order from the Delhi High Court, later upheld by the Supreme Court, he was granted bail. Subsequently, on September 9, 2019, citing the ED's communication, the erstwhile BJP-led State government granted permission for the CBI to pursue an investigation into the same issue.

The recently established Congress-led government in Karnataka, as of 2023, declared its decision to retract the previous authorization granted to the CBI in this case. Advocate P Prasanna Kumar, representing the CBI, expressed no opposition to Shivakumar withdrawing his appeal or to the withdrawal of consent. He emphasized that the legal process would proceed as per the law.

However, he raised doubts about halting the ongoing CBI investigation at this stage. According to his argument, once consent is initially given and an investigation has commenced, the subsequent withdrawal of consent holds no legal weight and does not affect the ongoing probe.

Advocate Venkatesh Dalaway represented BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, intervening to contest the State's move to revoke consent for the CBI investigation. However, the Court responded that any challenge to the State's decision should be pursued through separate legal proceedings. It also indicated discomfort with the manner in which the CBI's consent was retracted due to a change in the political regime. The bench hinted at differing opinions outside the courtroom concerning the broader issue but clarified that the Court's actions were bound by legal constraints.

Appearing for Shivakumar, Senior Advocate AM Singhvi asserted the aspect of whether the State's decision should be challenged is not one to be considered at the present stage.

Shivakumar contended that with the State's withdrawal of consent for the CBI investigation, his appeal had lost its relevance and should be permitted to be retracted. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the Karnataka government, emphasized Shivakumar's authority as the dominus litis (master of the case), stating that he had the entitlement to determine whether the appeal should indeed be withdrawn or not.

In a lighter vein, Senior Advocate Sibal also noted both the initiation and the closure of a CBI probe are often politically motivated.

The Court proceeded to allow Shivakumar to withdraw his appeal.