E-Paper
BJP MLA files PIL against govt decision to withdraw CBI sanction
Challenging the cabinet decision, Yatnal cited the Supreme Court order on the 1994 Kazi Lhendup Dorji case and claimed that once the sanction for the CBI probe is given, it cannot be withdrawn
Bengaluru
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal on Wednesday approached the Karnataka high court again challenging the state cabinet’s decision to withdraw permission given to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to probe against deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar in a disproportionate assets (DA) case.
The MLA who filed an interim petition against the decision on November 28 has now filed a public interest ligation (PIL) after his earlier petition was dismissed.
The MLA has urged the high court to quash the cabinet decision and allow the CBI to continue its probe.
The Karnataka cabinet decided on November 23 to withdraw the sanction accorded to the CBI to probe the DA case against Shivakumar citing that the then BJP government had not followed the rules.
Challenging the government’s decision, Yatnal cited the Supreme Court order on the 1994 Kazi Lhendup Dorji case and claimed that once the sanction for the CBI probe is given, it cannot be withdrawn. He also said that the CBI probe is 90% complete and the central agency must be allowed to complete its investigation.
During the November 28 hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal representing the state government had argued that the 1994 SC judgment was not relevant to the case concerned. Sibal said the facts and circumstances surrounding the withdrawal of sanction/consent in the present case differed significantly from those in the Dorji case.
After the cabinet decided to withdraw the sanction given to the CBI, Shivakumar approached the division bench of the HC to withdraw his plea challenging the single-bench order. On November 28, the division bench of the HC had granted Shivakumar permission to withdraw his appeal challenging the earlier single-bench order. The order had dismissed his plea contesting the then government’s decision to authorise a probe by CBI into allegations of disproportionate assets against him.
The withdrawal comes after the Karnataka government informed the HC of its decision to withdraw the consent for the CBI probe.
During this hearing, advocate Venkatesh Dalaway, appearing for Yatnal, opposed the state’s decision to withdraw consent for the CBI probe. “My opposition is to the consent order, which is tailor-made to scuttle the investigation... The state acting like this is a serious concern. The appellant (Shivakumar) is not an ordinary man,” his counsel argued.
The court, however, replied that if at all the state’s decision has to be challenged, it should be done in independent proceedings. “Though counsel vehemently submits that the state ought not to have withdrawn the consent and such a course is not acceptable, in our opinion, we are not able to assess the submission as up to now there is no challenge to the decision of the government,” the Bench had said.
The CBI derives its powers to investigate from the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946 which allows it to probe a case in Delhi. In other states, the governments there have to give consent to CBI under section 6 of the DSPE Act for a probe.
