Karnataka HC decision to quash KCOCA against MLA Byrathi Basavaraj won’t apply to all organised crime cases: SC

Setting aside the invocation of KCOCA in the July 15, 2025, murder case, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court had said it was invoked in the absence of evidence of continuing criminal activity by an organised gang—in the form of multiple chargesheets against at least one member for offences punishable with three years or more of imprisonment.

The high court order scrapping the invocation of KCOCA against Basavaraj also extended to the KCOCA charges against the 20 others who were arrested and accused of being part of an organised gang that carried out Shiva’s murder in Bengaluru.

The confusion over the high court order arose following the high court’s interpretation that an attempt to murder case that attracts a punishment of up to 10 years (under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code) would not apply as an instance of a prior crime for invoking the KCOCA, as it does not specifically prescribe a three-year sentence as mentioned in the Act.

Section 2 (1)(d) of KCOCA defines continuing organised crime as “an activity prohibited by law for the time being in force, which is a cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more, undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheet have been filed before a competent Court within the preceding period of ten years and that Court has taken cognizance of such offence”.

What the Karnataka HC ruling said

On December 19, 2025, the Karnataka High Court ruled that KCOCA was wrongly invoked in the Bikla Shiva murder case by the police despite one of the accused having two pending cases in the trial stage involving the attempt to murder charge under IPC Section 307, which is punishable by a jail term of 10 years.

“A holistic reading of Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(e) of KCOCA would indicate that as regards a member of the organised crime syndicate, there must be involvement of such member individually or jointly in cognisable offence punishable with imprisonment of three years or more with respect to at least more than one charge sheet having been filed in that regard before a competent Court,” the high court observed.

“This aspect, having been overlooked by the approval authority, would reflect non-application of mind,” the Karnataka High Court said.

The arguments before the SC

Senior counsel Siddharth Luthra on Tuesday sought a stay on the Karnataka High Court order, saying that its interpretation of a “mandatory minimum” sentence of three years for invoking KCOCA would be chaotic.

“The biggest problem with the interpretation of this law would be what about 307 (IPC) which is punishable with life but not minimum of three years,” a Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Panchal pointed out.

Mukul Rohatgi, the senior counsel for Basavaraj, argued that the Supreme Court has said that a punishment of three years or more implies a minimum of three years.

The bench, however, pointed out that the word punishable under KCOCA means a punishment that may be imposed and not mandatorily imposed.

The word “punishable” is not alien since the Criminal Procedure Code says that offences punishable with three years or more are cognisable offences and less than three years are non- cognisable offences. “What happens when a special law imposes a minimum punishment of five years? Will it become a non-cognisable offence? This is the only part we want to clarify,” Justice Bagchi said in oral observations.

The counsel for Basavaraj argued that a stay on the high court order would have the effect of cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Karnataka High Court, as the stringent KCOCA law does not have a provision for granting anticipatory bail.

The Supreme Court adjourned the matter for a final hearing with the observation that “meanwhile the implied judgement of the high court shall not be relied upon as a binding precedent”.

Under KCOCA, investigating agencies have a 180-day time limit for filing chargesheets against arrested people, and there is no provision for anticipatory bail for the accused. It also allows 30 days of police custody for the accused during the investigation period instead of the regular 15 days of custody.

The Bikla Shiva murder

Realtor V G Shivaprakash alias Bikla Shiva, 44, was killed outside his house on a public street near the Halasuru Lake in Bengaluru on the evening of July 15 last year by a gang of armed assailants. The murder is alleged to be linked to a property dispute dating back to February 2025 between two groups staking claim to a property in the Kithaganur area of east Bengaluru.

BJP MLA Byrathi Basavaraj is alleged to be closely linked to a gang that operates in the real estate sector in his constituency. Members of the gang are accused in the Shiva murder case. The murder victim had also filed police complaints about threats from the MLA.

Earlier in September 2025, a special court for cases involving elected representatives had rejected a plea of six people arrested in the case who had claimed that the provisions of the KCOCA were wrongly invoked against them since they were not involved in continuing criminal activities as described by the law.

The special court pointed out that the involvement of any one of the accused in multiple serious crimes where charge sheets are filed and taken cognisance by the courts is sufficient to bring all other accused in a case under the purview of KCOCA.

Under KCOCA, “continuing unlawful activity” means involvement of at least one person named in a gang crime in more than one serious crime in the last 10 years—where the punishment is a prison term of over three years, and where the courts have taken cognisance of the chargesheet in the case. This is a prerequisite to invoking KCOCA charges.