SC to pronounce judgment on April 21 on prosecution of Karnataka CM B S Yediyurappa

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra would render the judgment on April 21, 2025.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is set to pronounce its order on Monday on a batch of petitions concerning prosecution of former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa over land denotification cases.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra would render the order on April 21, 2025.

As per the causelist, the order is to be pronounced by Justice Misra at 12.45 pm.

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

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

The court had noted 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 has 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.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, who appeared for Yediyurappa, had said there were certain parcels of land which were withdrawn, the FIRs got registered, the accused was a public servant at the time of the offence. Since there was no sanction, the court still took cognisance, the HC quashed it, this order not challenged. However, on the same, identical complaint was filed, trial court dismissed it but the High Court set aside the dismissal.

Luthra also referred to the issue of applicability of Section 17A — related to mandatory prior approval for prosecuting a public servant — introduced in 2018 in the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court's two-judge bench gave a split verdict on the issue of obtaining prior sanction before initiating enquiry, inquiry or investigation against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The court had then ordered posting the matter before the Chief Justice of India for setting up a larger bench to decide the applicability of Section 17A. Of two judges, Justice Aniruddha Bose (since retired) held if any enquiry, inquiry and investigation has been initiated without previous approval of the competent authority under Section 17A, it shall be held as illegal.

Justice Bela M Trivedi, for her part, held that the Amendment Act, 2018 can't be used to seek mandatory approval of the authorities for the offences prior to the date of July 26, 2018, notified for application of the new provisions.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, Additional Advocate General Aman Panwar and advocate D L Chidananda appeared for the state government. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta also assisted the court as the reports by the Comptroller and Auditor General also formed the basis of some of the complaints against Yediyurappa.

One of the lead cases related to the failure to grant 26 acres of land to private investor M Alam Pasha in 2011. The top court had on January 27, 2021, granted protection from arrest to Yediyurappa and Minister Murugesh Nirani in the case. Yediyurappa and Nirani had approached the top court against the High Court's January 5, 2021, order allowing criminal proceedings against them.

They raised a legal question whether a court can initiate proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant without prior sanction on the ground that he demitted office, which he allegedly abused, in view of the amended provision related to Section 19.

The HC had restored the fresh criminal complaint filed against them in the Bengaluru court, despite a previous one having been quashed on October 11, 2013, for want of valid sanction.

The HC had held that the quashing of the earlier complaint filed by Pasha for want of sanction would not operate as a bar to maintain the instant complaint.

Acting on Pasha's plea against the Special Judge's order of August 26, 2016, the HC had said the order was contrary to the well-established principle of law that sanction for prosecution of the public servants was not necessary after they demit the office or retire from service.

Pasha accused the then CM, Nirani, then Industries Minister and others of allegedly forging the documents to show withdrawal of approval of 26 acres of land to him in Devanahalli Industrial Area in Bengaluru Rural in 2011.