On Monday, the Supreme Court referred to a larger bench to a special holiday petition filed by the former Chief Minister of Karnataka and the leader of BJP BS Yediyuppa, who challenged the revival of cases of corruption against him.
The JB Parddiwala and Misra Misra bench explained that one of the primary legal issues involved in the case of Mr. Yediyuppy was whether the judge could order an investigation against a civil servant pursuant to Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Proceedings (CRPC) without prior approval of the competent authority under Section 17a in 1988.
The justice of Pardiwala said that during the research for their judgment, he and the judiciary of Misra came across the fact that the coordinate bench (another bench) of the Top Court ceded in 2018 by another case, which in 2018 posed the same question of the law.
The bacted petition given by Mr. Yediyurappa (Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arara & ORS), the bench said that the court discipline requires them not to understand the judgment, but leave it to a larger bench to decide.
“To maintain judicial discipline, the coordinates bench of this court continued to reflect on the basic question that applies to a larger bench. We consider it appropriate to identify these petitions with reference matters to Manju Surana vs. Sunil and ORS. The register is ordered to ban these matters.
The case against Mr. Yediyupp was based on Alam Pasha’s complaints, who accused the former main minister of entering the conspiracy with others to cancel the approval granted by a high level of 26 acres of land in the industrial space of Devanahali in Begalur. The case of Mr. Pasha was that the alleged abolition of government land intended for industrial development was a public treasury strongly.
Mr. Yediyuppa was the main minister from 2008 to 2011 at a time when these alleged events became. Police Lokayukta investigated a complaint and companies were registered under the Indian Criminal Code and in the Corruption Prevention Act. In 2013 she participated in the local court in 2013.
The BJP leader successfully claimed that since he was a civil servant at the time of alleged events, the judge had not been aware of the complaint under Section 156 (3) of the CRPC without the prior consent of the competent authority under Section 17a.
Mr. Yediyurappa dealt with the Supreme Court case law in 2013 Anil Kumar vs. MK Aiyapp to win his case at the Supreme Court. The reference in the matter of Manju Surana deals with the correctness of the law announced in the case of Aiyapp.
After the decision of the Supreme Court, Mr. Pasha was waiting for two months for a second complaint containing the same charges against the former main minister.
This time he claimed that Mr. Yediyuppa had stopped doing a public office and there was no need to prosecute him. The Court rejected a complaint about the lack of sanctions, but the High Court favored Mr. Pasha.
The High Court also revived the case of corruption against the BJP leader in 2021. This forced Mr. Yediyupp to turn to the Supreme Court.
Published – April 21, 2025 9:02
