Disproportionate Assets Case: Karnataka High Court Allows D.K. Shivakumar to Withdraw Pleas After State Government Withdraws Consent for CBI Probe

A Division Bench, led by Chief Justice Prasanna B. Varale and Justice Krishna S. Dixit, issued the order while resolving the writ appeal filed by Mr. Shivakumar. He had contested the April 20, 2023 verdict of a single judge, who had upheld the legality of the 2019 consent.

During the hearing on Wednesday, the State government presented a copy of the Government Order from November 28, which officially withdrew the consent.

Simultaneously, Mr. Shivakumar’s legal counsel submitted a memo requesting permission to withdraw both the writ petition filed in 2020 challenging the 2019 consent and the writ appeal filed against the single judge’s April 30, 2023 verdict, which dismissed his petition and upheld the legality of the consent.

Senior Advocates Abhishek Singhvi and Uday Holla argued that the writ petition and writ appeal had become irrelevant since the September 25, 2019 consent was no longer valid due to its withdrawal by the State government.

However, advocate P. Prasanna Kumar, representing the CBI, expressed objections to the withdrawal of the writ petition itself, although he had no objection to the withdrawal of the writ appeal. The CBI’s counsel argued that the withdrawal of consent would not impact the First Information Report (FIR) already registered, citing the Supreme Court’s 1994 judgment in the case.

Meanwhile, Advocate Venkatesh P. Dalwai, representing Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, a BJP MLA seeking to intervene in the proceedings, objected to the withdrawal of Mr. Shivakumar’s pleas. Dalwai argued that the withdrawal of sanction/consent while the matter was still sub-judice in the writ appeal amounted to interference by the government in judicial proceedings.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State government alongside Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, contended that the judgment cited by the CBI counsel was not applicable to the present case. Sibal argued that the facts and circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of sanction/consent in this case were different from those in the Dorji’s case.

Taking note of these arguments, the Bench acknowledged that the Government Order of withdrawal of sanction/consent dated November 28, 2023, had not been challenged thus far. Therefore, the Bench stated that it could not legally prevent Mr. Shivakumar from withdrawing his pleas. Consequently, the Bench allowed the withdrawal of both the writ petition and the writ appeal without delving into the legality of the September 25, 2019 sanction/consent or the accuracy of the single judge’s April verdict.

Furthermore, the Bench clarified that it was not passing any judgment on the correctness or legality of the November 28 order of withdrawal of sanction/consent since it had not been challenged before the court