SC Agrees To Examine Karnataka Plea Against Quashing Of KCOCA Case Against BJP MLA B A Basavaraja

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a plea filed by the Karnataka government challenging an order passed by the high court, which quashed the invocation of the stringent Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act against BJP MLA B A Basavaraja, in the Shivaprakash murder case.

The matter came up before a bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi. Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra appeared for the state government along with the state's Additional Advocate General Nishanth Patil and advocate Sanchit Garg, and senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi for the legislator.

During the hearing, the state government contended that the order of the high court that the law required, in order to invoke the provisions of the KCOCA, the offence must carry a mandatory minimum sentence of three years or more, would have an impact on various cases pending before the trial court.

Rohatgi, representing Basavaraja, submitted that his client has got anticipatory bail, and the moment this law is put in, then one cannot apply for anticipatory bail, and once he got interim bail, the state added this local Karnataka Act equal to MCOCA so that his client’s anticipatory bail gets cancelled. Rohatgi said all this was happening because he belonged to a different dispensation.

Luthra contended that if this interpretation were accepted, then statutes would be rendered worthless completely.

The bench observed that any interpretation of an attempt to murder will go out of the ambit of the special law, if the high court's order was followed. “So any imprisonment term which has a punishment possible for three years or more will get attracted here…”, observed the bench.

Rohatgi said this is the conundrum, as up to three years is one phrase, three years or more is one phrase, minimum three years is one phrase.

Luthra contended that the stay of operation of this judgment will not prejudice them, and he is on interim bail and bail for others was declined.

After hearing submissions, the bench issued notice on the appeal filed by the state government and scheduled the matter for final hearing on April 15, 2026.

"Let the HC judgment not be followed as a binding precedent," the bench said.

In its plea, the state government challenged the validity of the high court's judgment of December 19, 2025.

It stated that the FIR in question was registered based on a complaint by the mother of the deceased, detailing specific acts of threats and intimidation, as well as ongoing disputes between the deceased and the MLA, along with his associates, including Jagadeesh, regarding real estate and property deals.

The state’s plea said that the deceased had expressed fears for his life, which tragically culminated in his murder on July 13, 2025.