The Delhi High Court has scheduled a hearing for January 23, 2025, to consider a plea by Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, challenging an ongoing money laundering investigation conducted by the Enforcement Directorate (ED). Justices Prathiba M Singh and Amit Sharma decided to defer the case due to the court’s existing commitments to part-heard matters.
D K Shivakumar approached the high court in 2022, seeking to quash the ED’s investigation, which includes summonses tied to an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) filed against him in 2020. This ECIR was linked to allegations of possessing disproportionate assets, a case initiated by a CBI FIR in Bengaluru.
During the proceedings, Shivakumar’s senior counsel indicated that their arguments, addressing significant legal issues, would require approximately half a day. The Deputy Chief Minister’s petition contests the ED’s probe on several fronts, notably arguing that the agency is redundantly investigating charges that were already examined in a different case in 2018. Shivakumar’s team contends that the current investigation is both an abuse of legal process and a malafide exercise of power.
On May 2, 2023, the Delhi High Court mandated that the ED could not take coercive action against Shivakumar pending the resolution of this case. Despite this, the ED maintains that the two ECIRs are distinct, asserting that the overlapping facts do not constitute a re-investigation. According to the ED, while the first ECIR focused on a criminal conspiracy involving Rs 8.59 crore, the current case involves alleged disproportionate assets worth Rs 74.93 crore.
The probe agency further explained that preliminary inquiries by the CBI’s Anti-Corruption Bureau in Bengaluru revealed that Shivakumar and his family allegedly held wealth disproportionate to their known sources of income between 2013 and 2018.
The ED also argues that claims of double jeopardy are premature during the investigative stage and that it is inappropriate to issue interim orders akin to final anticipatory bail in a petition challenging the constitutional validity of specific provisions of the special act.
