The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into allegations of a “honey-trap” scheme reportedly involving a minister and several politicians in Karnataka. The three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, decided against intervening in the matter.
The PIL, filed by social activist Binay Kumar Singh, had requested that the investigation be monitored by the Supreme Court or overseen by a committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge. Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha, representing the petitioner, argued that the allegations, which had been widely reported in the media, necessitated a comprehensive investigation to uncover the individuals involved.
According to the plea, the alleged “honey-trap” of judges by certain vested interests posed a severe threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law. “On March 21, 2025, various media outlets reported troubling allegations made on the floor of the Karnataka state legislature, i.e., Vidhan Soudha, that a person aspiring to be the chief minister has successfully honey-trapped several individuals, among whom are judges,” stated the plea filed by advocate Abhishek.
The petitioner highlighted that the accusations were brought forth by a sitting minister, who claimed to be a victim himself, thus adding weight to the severity of the claims.
Karnataka’s Cooperation Minister K N Rajanna stirred the state assembly on March 20 by claiming that attempts had been made to “honey-trap” him and that similar schemes had ensnared at least 48 politicians from various parties. “People say that there is a CD (compact disk) and pen drive factory in Karnataka. I have come to know that there are CDs and pen drives of 48 people available in the state. This network is spread across India and even several union ministers have been trapped,” Rajanna disclosed.
The allegations caused significant uproar in the assembly, leading the home minister to declare a high-level investigation, while the opposition called for a judicial inquiry by a sitting high court judge.
