Corruption Case: SC Reserves Verdict On Ex-CM Yediyurappa’s Plea Against Revival

The Supreme Court on Friday reserved its verdict on a plea filed by senior BJP leader and former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, challenging the revival of a corruption case against him.

The court concluded hearings on April 4, raising significant legal questions surrounding the requirement of a sanction to prosecute public servants.

Background

The case stems from a complaint filed by A Alam Pasha, a Bengaluru-based businessman, alleging corruption and criminal conspiracy involving Yediyurappa, former Industries Minister Murugesh R. Nirani, and Shivaswamy K.S., former MD of Karnataka Udyog Mitra.

On January 5, 2021, the Karnataka High Court allowed Pasha’s plea, reviving his complaint. The HC ruled that the lack of prior sanction, earlier cited as a reason to quash the case, was no longer applicable after the accused had left public office. However, the court did not permit the prosecution of V P Baligar, a retired IAS officer and former principal secretary, in the same case.

Questions Before Court

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra heard the matter and framed seven critical legal questions, focusing on the interplay between the CrPC and the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act—particularly concerning the need for prior sanction.

One major point of discussion is whether a judicial magistrate’s order under Section 156(3) CrPC—which allows police investigation based on a complaint, overrides the requirement of prior government approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.

Section 17A mandates that no police officer can begin an investigation into decisions made by a public servant during official duties without the government’s prior sanction.

Bench Questioned

“Could it be said that a police officer, despite a direction under Section 156(3) by a Magistrate, would remain inhibited from conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation without prior approval as required by Section 17A?”

Another issue raised was whether a magistrate can proceed under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC, which allow for examination of complaints and postponement of proceedings, without such sanction, and whether these powers are limited to pre-cognizance stages.

The court has asked Yediyurappa’s counsel to submit written arguments within two weeks, addressing these legal issues along with any relevant case law.

Alleged Land Scam

Pasha initially alleged that Yediyurappa and others conspired to forge documents to cancel a previous decision by a high-level committee which had allotted him 26 acres of industrial land in Devanahalli.

His first complaint was investigated by the Lokayukta Police, but in 2013, it was quashed by the high court for lack of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.

After the accused vacated their offices, Pasha filed a fresh complaint in 2014, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the A R Antulay case, which states that sanction is not needed once a public servant demits office. Still, in 2016, the special judge dismissed the complaint again, citing the same issue of missing sanction.

What Lies Ahead

With the Supreme Court reserving its verdict, the decision will have wide implications—not only for Yediyurappa but also for how courts handle corruption allegations against former public officials. The ruling is expected to provide clarity on whether judicial directions can bypass procedural safeguards like prior sanction, which are designed to protect officials from frivolous charges.