'Judicial propriety, discipline': SC refers matter related to applicability of sanction for prosecution of Yeddyurappa to larger bench

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Yeddyurappa said, 'We as petitioner should have pointed this out to the court.'

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday refrained from pronouncing its order in a matter related to prosecution of former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa over land denotification cases, as the issue with regard to sanction has been pending consideration before a larger bench.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said in order to maintain judicial discipline and propriety, the court ordered to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

"When we were about to start working on this judgment, we realised there is another order passed by a coordinate bench that on April 16, 2024 in 'Shamin Khan Vs Debashish Chakrabarty and others', where the very same issue has been referred to a larger bench," Justice Pardiwala said.

Therefore, we felt propriety demands when two courts have referred the matter to a larger bench, we have to send this also before the larger bench, he added.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Yeddyurappa said, "We as petitioner should have pointed out this order to the court."

The counsel had earlier cited the pending reference orally and in written submissions.

A complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC by the Special Judge is no longer res integra and stands covered by a coordinate bench of this court in Anil Kumar Vs M K Aiyappa (2013) case, which was later followed in L Narayana Swamy Vs State of Karnataka (2016) case, the counsel said.

Another coordinate bench of this court, after noticing the decision in Aiyappa referred the issue to a larger bench in Manju Surana Vs Sunil Arora (2018) case, he said.

In its order, the bench said reference here in Yeddyurappa's case was made only on the ground of propriety.

"In this order also, we have formulated the issues but then we came across an order of this court dated April 16, 2024 by a coordinate bench of this court," the bench said.

In order to maintain judicial discipline, this court refrained from proceeding further in deciding the issue, under reference to a larger bench, the bench added.

"We deemed it appropriate to tag these petitions to the referred matter Manju Surana Vs Sunil Arora and others," the bench said.

The court directed the registry to place these matters before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

The court had on April 4, 2025 reserved the matter for judgment.

The matter primarily is related to applicability of prior sanction for prosecution of a public servant in a corruption case.

The court had noted that the questions to be adjudicated as to what are the relevant considerations as contemplated by Section 17A of the PC Act which the appropriate authority or government is expected to look into before the grant of approval for initiation of any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation by the police.

It also decided to consider whether the considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act are of such a nature that they are necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

Another question which fell for consideration was whether it could be said that once a magistrate applied his mind under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the requirement of a prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is meaningless, redundant and no longer necessary.

Among others, the court also decided to consider whether the requirements introduced by Section 17A and the amended Section 19 of the PC Act could be said to be retrospectively applicable.

In the case, the high court by its order of October 11, 2013 allowed the 482 CrPC petition and quashed the FIR as well as the subsequent proceedings in absence of sanction against Yeddyurappa with regard to land denotification cases, by relying upon the decision of this court in Aiyappa case.

On December 12, 2013, the first respondent, A Alam Basha filed another complaint making almost identical allegations. He contended that the accused have ceased to hold office, therefore, sanction to prosecute them under section 19 of the PC Act is not required. The trial court dismissed the second complaint due to absence of sanction.

The complainant approached the high court which on January 5, 2021, restored the complaint.

Yeddyurappa filed a plea in the Supreme Court, contending "the second complaint was not maintainable; sanction was required in view of amended Section 19 and newly inserted Section 17-A of the PC Act; Aiyappa’s judgment was a good law unless set aside by a larger bench where the reference is pending, therefore, high court was not justified in interfering with the order rejecting the complaint."