Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), urging an independent probe by a central agency into the alleged honey-trapping scandal in Karnataka. The racket is said to have targeted at least 48 individuals, including ministers, political leaders, and judicial officers.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna considered an urgent mention made by Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha on behalf of petitioner Binay Kumar Singh, who raised serious concerns over the alleged scandal.

The controversy arose after Karnataka Cooperation Minister K. N. Rajanna revealed in the Legislative Assembly that he had been targeted in an attempt at honey-trapping, claiming that 48 leaders from all political parties and several judicial officers, had been similarly targeted. His statement followed remarks by BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal, who alleged that legislators were being targeted by organized gangs.

“On 21.03.2025 various media outlets carried the reports of troubling allegations made on the floor of the Karnataka state legislature i.e. Vidhan Soudha that a person aspiring to be the Chief Minister of the State has been successful in honey trapping several persons, amongst whom are judges. The allegations have been made by a sitting minister who has claimed himself to be a victim, thereby lending credibility to the serious allegations,” the PIL mentioned.

The plea highlighted that allegations of judges being compromised through honey-trapping posed a grave threat to judicial independence and public confidence in the judiciary. “if allegations of judges being honey-trapped hold any truth, it raises alarming concerns about the erosion of judicial independence, which, in turn, threatens the very fabric of democracy… If judges fall prey to such schemes, their ability to render impartial verdicts is severely compromised. They may be coerced into delivering judgments that favor their blackmailers rather than adhering to legal principles and justice. This not only undermines public confidence in the courts but also emboldens corrupt forces that seek to subvert democracy for personal or political gain.” the petition stated.

The PIL sought a Supreme Court-monitored probe by an independent agency, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or a Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising officers of integrity, free from state control or influence. The petitioner contended, “if ministers of a state government are themselves accused of orchestrating the honey traps, it would be a mockery of justice to allow an agency under their control to conduct the probe. Such an investigation would lack credibility and could be easily influenced, suppressed, or manipulated to protect the perpetrators rather than expose the truth.”

The PIL also proposed the formation of a monitoring committee led by a retired Supreme Court judge to oversee the investigation and examine the roles of individuals or entities that benefitted from the alleged scandal.

The petitioner underscored the need for urgent and impartial action, emphasising that “a thorough and impartial investigation is not just necessary—it is imperative.”

The plea warned that failing to act decisively would erode public trust and potentially invite further attacks on judicial integrity.

 

Cause Title: Binay Kumar Singh v Union of India