“Acts Done Without Approval Under Section 17A Are ‘Null and Void’, Karnataka High Court: ‘Approval is Imperative to Safeguard Against Vexatious Prosecution’”
Sanchayita Lahkar
In a significant judgment the Karnataka High Court has invalidated an inquiry conducted by the Karnataka Lokayukta against public servants prior to obtaining approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, observing that such acts are "null and void". The Single-Judge Bench, presided over by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, issued the verdict on March 17, 2025, following the hearing of a writ petition filed by three petitioners who sought a declaration against the investigatiion undertaken without the requisite sanction as null and void.
The Court recorded that the investigation initiated by the Lokayukta based on an anonymous complaint was undertaken “even before approval under Section 17A and registration of a FIR”, rendering the entire process contrary to statutory requirements. The Court further directed that although the prior investigation is invalidated, the Lokayukta is at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law following the grant of necessary approval. The petition was partly allowed, declaring the prior acts null and void while reserving the respondents’ right to conduct further lawful investigation.
The matter involved three petitioners who were public servants during the period under consideration. The first petitioner served as Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayat, Jagalur, Davangere District during 2015-16, while the second petitioner held the same position in 2014-15. The third petitioner was the Junior Engineer at the same Panchayat. An anonymous complaint triggered the initial inquiry by the Lokayukta, leading to the collection of documents and official communications between various government departments.
According to the petitioners, the Lokayukta commenced its inquiry and collected materials in the absence of an FIR and without obtaining prior approval under Section 17A. Petitioners, represented by advocate Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, contended that this sequence of actions was “contrary to law” and breached mandatory procedural safeguards under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was argued that the Lokayukta conducted an inquiry spanning over three years before later seeking approval under Section 17A. The petitioners submitted that the Lokayukta’s actions were undertaken in violation of the binding precedent of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 2 SCC 1], which delineates the requirement for registration of an FIR before commencing an investigation.
On the contrary, the respondents, represented by Sri Venkatesh Arabatti, defended the actions of the Lokayukta, asserting that the acts undertaken were “only preliminary inquiry” permissible under the guidelines laid down in Lalita Kumari for corruption cases. It was submitted that the Lokayukta had merely collected documents and no formal investigation commenced until permission under Section 17A was subsequently sought.
The petitioners also referenced government circulars prohibiting actions based on anonymous complaints, particularly the circular issued on 5 March 2021 by the Karnataka Government, which directed that anonymous complaints should be closed and not pursued unless specific parameters were met.
Further, it was revealed that the Lokayukta, after collecting a series of documents and official statements, sought approval under Section 17A on 17 June 2023, prompting the petitioners to approach the Court, challenging the legality of the steps taken prior to the said approval.
The Court identified Section 17A as the fulcrum of the dispute and scrutinized its statutory mandate in detail. Section 17A, inserted through the Amending Act of 2018, prohibits any enquiry, inquiry or investigation against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act without prior approval of the competent authority.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded that “in terms of the amendment or in terms of Section 17A, for an inquiry, enquiry or investigation approval under Section 17A is mandatory”. The Court rejected the respondents’ argument that the Lokayukta’s actions constituted a mere preliminary inquiry as permitted by Lalita Kumari, noting that the latter was decided before Section 17A came into force.
The Court observed: “Even if it is construed that what the Lokayukta has done is a preliminary enquiry, it could not have been done without two instances taking place – one, approval under Section 17A of the Act, and two, the registration of a FIR.”
Highlighting the mandatory nature of Section 17A, the Court remarked: “Section 17A creates a protective filter for vexatious and frivolous prosecution and complaints to pass muster to the rigors of Section 17A.” The judgment also cited the Supreme Court decision in Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2020) 2 SCC 338], which emphasized the statutory bar under Section 17A against initiating inquiries or investigations without prior approval.
The Court further observed that “to describe such fact-finding as ‘preliminary’ would be to trivialize the legislative intent behind Section 17A” and concluded that the inquiry undertaken by the Lokayukta prior to 17 June 2023 lacked statutory validity.
The Karnataka High Court, while partly allowing the writ petition, issued the following directions:
“It is declared that the enquiry, inquiry or investigation of the kind conducted in the case at hand prior to 17-06-2023 is null and void.”
The Court also stated that this declaration would not bar lawful proceedings against the petitioners in future, stating: “Liberty is reserved to the respondents/Lokayukta to proceed against the petitioners in a manner known to law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For Petitioners: Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, Advocate
For Respondents: Sri Venkatesh Arabatti, Advocate
Case Title: Smt. S. Laxmi and Others v. The Addl. Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta and Another
Neutral Citation: 2025/KAR/11933
Case Number: W.P. No. 11933 of 2023 (GM - RES)
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna
[Read/Download order]
