Justice Mukta Gandhi and Justice Anish Dayal were part of a division bench that did not issue an order preventing coercive action from being taken against the Karnataka Congress president.
The court ordered the probe agency to respond by December 15.
Shivakumar claimed that the new PMLA investigation in the matter was based upon identical facts and infringed on his rights.
“The 1st ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report), respondent sought custody of petitioner primarily in order to investigate the question relating to the petitioner’s growth in assets during his tenure as Minister and MLA in Kamataka. His plea stated that the PML Act’s invocation of new proceedings on the same facts and for the same period directly violates the Constitution, particularly Article 20(2).
Further, the plea argued that the offense under 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 can not lead to the generation of proceeds of criminal activity.
“…PML Act cannot be used against someone claiming to have amassed disproportionate wealth in these cases. It was stated that the Prevention of Corruption Act’s 13th offense is a violation of Article 20(2) of CrPC and Section 300 of CrPC.”