Corruption case against Yediyurappa: Supreme Court refers matter to larger bench
Does a probe agency need a prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act after a magisterial court order of inquiry to prosecute a public servant?
Faced with this legal question, the Supreme Court on Monday referred to a larger bench the issues arising out of senior BJP leader and former Karnataka chief minister BS Yediyurappa’s petition challenging the Karnataka High Court’s order reviving a corruption case against him.
A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra – which had on April 4 reserved its verdict on Yediyurappa’s petition – noted that it has come across a April 16, 2024 order of a coordinate bench referring similar questions to a larger bench in a separate case.
Citing the principle of “judicial propriety”, Justice Pardiwala on Monday said on this aspect alone Yediyurappa’s petition was being sent to the Chief Justice of India for setting up a larger bench. “We deem it appropriate to tag these petitions to the referred matter Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora,” Justice Pardiwala said, directing the top court’s Registry to place these matters before the CJI. The bench listed out seven legal questions for adjudication by the larger bench.
Allowing Bengaluru-based A Alam Pasha’s petition, the Karnataka High Court had on January 5, 2021 revived his complaint against Yediyurappa, former Industries Minister Murugesh R Nirani and Shivaswamy KS – a former managing director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra. Pasha alleged charges of corruption and criminal conspiracy against Yediyurappa, Nirani and Shivaswamy KS.
The absence of a prior sanction for prosecution leading to the quashing of an earlier complaint did not bar the filing of a fresh complaint once the accused demitted office but did not allow prosecution of VP Baligar, a retired IAS officer and former principal secretary of state government in the case, the high court had said.
Pasha had filed a complaint alleging Yediyurappa and others conspired to forge documents to revoke a high-level clearance committee’s approval for allotting 26 acres of industrial land to him at Devanahalli Industrial Area.
The complaint was initially investigated by Lokayukta Police, but in 2013, the high court quashed the complaint for a lack of mandatory sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act. Subsequently, after the accused vacated their offices, Pasha filed a fresh complaint in 2014, arguing that sanction was no longer required in light of Supreme Court judgment in the AR Antulay case. The special judge, however, dismissed the second complaint in 2016, citing lack of sanction. Pasha moved the high court from where the matter reached the top court.
