Parth Bajaj
On 24 March 2025, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before Supreme Court seeking a court-monitored probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the explosive honey-trap scandal in Karnataka. The matter was mentioned before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna, who said that it will be listed tomorrow.
The scandal, which surfaced in the Karnataka State Assembly on March 20, 2025, involves a senior minister and 48 other high-profile individuals, including legislators, political leaders, and even judges. The allegations were first brought to light by Congress’s Minister for Cooperation, KN Rajanna, who claimed that he had been a target of a honey-trapping attempt by a criminal network that had also entrapped others across party lines.
The controversy has sparked intense political and legal debates, leading to uproar in the assembly and the eventual suspension of 18 BJP MLAs following their protests. Amid the mounting tensions, Jharkhand-based advocate Binay Kumar Singh moved to the Supreme Court, emphasizing the grave implications of the scandal.
According to the petitioner, the integrity of the judiciary is at stake, “An independent judiciary is the cornerstone of any democracy. Judges are expected to uphold the law without fear, favor, or external influence. However, 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”.
The plea further argues that if Judges fall prey to blackmail, their ability to deliver impartial verdicts is severely compromised. “A judiciary tainted by external influence ceases to be a check on executive and legislative overreach. If judges are susceptible to blackmail, the courts may no longer serve as the bulwark against authoritarianism, corruption, or corporate greed,” the petition states.
Case Name: Binay Kumar Singh v. Union of India
Case Number: W.P.(Crl.) No. 000126 / 2025
Bench: Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna
