Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday expressed strong displeasure over the conduct of an Advocate in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a CBI probe into MUDA site allotment case.

The Court warned that strict action would be taken against those who shift their stance in the Court. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice M.I. Arun was hearing the PIL filed by Mysuru-based Advocate C. Santhosh, who had sought a CBI investigation into the case.

The Court’s sharp remarks suggest growing scrutiny over PILs, particularly concerning inconsistencies in legal arguments and sternly warned against using the PIL platform to shift positions.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s lawyer, B.S. Sawanth, informed the Court, “A Single Judge Bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna has already dismissed a similar petition — to hand over the MUDA case to CBI — by Mysuru-based RTI activist Snehamayi Krishna, citing lack of merit. In light of this, I have submitted a memo to withdraw the public interest petition.”

Responding to petitioner’s Advocate, the Bench said, “Your decision to withdraw the petition directly reflects your integrity. You are changing your stance before the Court. On Nov. 4, 2024, we issued a clear order that the PIL petition must be substantiated with a proper request and a convincing nature. But you have filed the PIL based on media reports. We had suggested you to submit strong evidence to convince the Court about the need of a CBI probe. Instead of complying, you are now withdrawing the petition. We will take a decision in the next hearing. As a public interest litigant, you are not serious.”

The Bench further warned, “We are not commenting on the case but on your conduct. You are using the PIL platform to change your stance before the Court. Your arguments, withdrawal memo, hearing request, and petition submission have all been noted. Whether you or your senior lawyer appears, be cautious — we will take strict action regarding your conduct. We will not allow the misuse of the PIL process. If your PIL has genuine merit, we will proceed on your behalf. Everything is public and we are well aware of your statements.”

After these observations, the Court postponed the hearing to Mar. 10.