Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 21, 2025 referred a matter concerning prosecution of former Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yeddyurappa to a larger bench in order to maintain judicial discipline and propriety as a similar plea related to sanction was earlier referred to the larger bench.

A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said,

"...this court had on April 4, 2025 reserved the matter for judgment while framing the questions for consideration. However, while preparing the judgment, on the issue relating to applicability of Aiyappa’s decision we came across an order of this court dated 16.04.2024 passed by a coordinate bench of this court in SLP (Crl) Nos.3567-3568/2017 Shamin Khan vs Debashish Chakrabarty & Ors"

Former CM, Yeddyurappa approached the Top Court contending the second complaint was not maintainable and that 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.   

"As for maintaining judicial discipline a coordinate bench of this court has refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue, which is under reference to a larger bench, we deem it appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred in matter “Manju Surana Vs Sunil Arora & Ors” (2018)," the bench further added.

Brief Background

On April 4, 2025, the court had framed several questions for adjudication, including as to what are the relevant considerations as contemplated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 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.

Another question was whether the considerations which weigh with the appropriate authority or government while granting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act are fundamentally so different from the one that a Magistrate is ordinarily expected to apply while passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so as to preclude the Magistrate from fulfilling the object underlying Section 17A of the PC Act.

In the case at hand, 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 by relying upon the decision of this Court in Aiyappa case.

However, on December 12, 2013, the first respondent filed another complaint making almost identical allegations by adding 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, inter alia, on the ground that there was no sanction.

Aggrieved by dismissal of the second complaint, the first respondent filed a 482 petition before the High Court, which came to be allowed by the impugned order of January 05, 2021. 

Case Title: BS Yedyurappa v. A Alam Basha & Ors.