Judicial discipline and propriety dissuade us: Supreme Court refers BS Yediyurappa land de-notification case to larger bench on magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) CrPC
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra has declined to decide the petitions challenging the legality of proceedings initiated under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the absence of prior sanction. The Court directed that the matters be tagged with the already pending reference in Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors., concerning whether a Magistrate takes cognizance while exercising powers under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Stating judicial discipline, the Court refrained from adjudicating on the substantive legal questions until the larger bench decides the referred issues.
On 26 April 2012, a complaint was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner and other individuals—who were at the time Government Servants—alleging offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The alleged acts pertained to the tenure of the petitioner as Chief Minister of Karnataka from 30 May 2008 to 31 July 2011. Pursuant to an order dated 21 May 2012 under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the complaint was referred to the Lokayukta police, which led to the registration of an FIR invoking provisions of the IPC and the PC Act.
Following the investigation, a final report was filed and cognizance was taken on 24 June 2013. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and subsequent proceedings, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa, which held that investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be ordered without prior sanction when the accused is a public servant.
The High Court accepted the argument and quashed the FIR and proceedings on 11 October 2013. That order attained finality. However, on 12 December 2013, the first respondent filed another complaint with similar allegations, additionally claiming that the accused had demitted office and thus sanction under Section 19 PC Act was no longer necessary.
The second complaint was dismissed on 26 August 2016 by the trial court due to lack of sanction. The respondent challenged the dismissal under Section 482 CrPC, and on 5 January 2021, the High Court restored the complaint (PCR No. 32/2014) and directed proceedings to continue against all accused except one for whom sanction was explicitly denied.
Challenging the High Court’s 2021 order, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that the second complaint was barred, citing the absence of sanction under Section 19 and the insertion of Section 17A in the PC Act by the 2018 amendment. They also relied on Aiyappa to contend that the order under Section 156(3) was void without sanction. Additionally, it was argued that the protections under Section 19 PC Act and Section 197 CrPC remain applicable even post-demission of office if the alleged acts were performed in the course of official duties.
On the applicability of Section 17A to pre-2018 acts, the petitioner noted a split in judicial opinions, referencing the referral in Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioner also pointed out that Aiyappa has not yet been overruled and remains binding law until set aside by a larger bench.
The respondents countered that Aiyappa is contrary to earlier binding decisions, particularly R.R. Chari vs. State of U.P., which clarified that no cognizance is taken when a Magistrate acts under Section 156(3) CrPC. They contended that Section 17A does not bar a court from ordering an investigation and applies only to police-led investigations. The respondents further maintained that the second complaint was maintainable because the first was dismissed on technical, not substantive, grounds.
Court Observations
The Court framed several questions for consideration:
“What are the relevant considerations as contemplated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988...?”
“Whether... the requirement of a prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is meaningless, redundant and no longer necessary?”
“Whether, Part (ii) of the First Proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act... necessarily envisages that the Magistrate ought to have first considered the statements of the complainant and the witnesses(s)...?”
“Whether the requirements introduced by Section 17A and the amended Section 19 of the PC Act could be said to be retrospectively applicable?”
While examining these, the Court recorded:
“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...”
The Court cited an order dated 16 April 2024 in Shamin Khan vs. Debashish Chakrabarty & Ors., where a coordinate bench noted:
“We are of the considered view that scanning of the provisions under Sections 156(3), 173(2), 190, 200, 202, 203 and 204 of the CrPC would, prima facie, reveal that while directing for an investigation and forwarding the complaint therefor, the Magistrate is not actually taking cognizance.”
However, since the matter is pending in Manju Surana, the Court stated:
“Judicial discipline and propriety dissuade us from proceeding further with the case and hence, we order to tag the captioned matters also along with the matter(s) already referred.”
Accordingly, the Court expressed the need for the matter to be considered in conjunction with the broader issues before the larger bench.
The Court concluded:
“As for maintaining judicial discipline a coordinate bench of this Court has refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue... we deem it appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred matter ‘Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors.’...”
It further ordered: “The registry is directed to place these matters before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.”
No further determination was made on the merits of the challenge, and no specific findings were recorded on the legality of the second complaint, maintainability, or applicability of sanction-related provisions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vikas Singh, Senior Advocate; Mr. R. Basant, Senior Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Siddharth Luthra, Senior Advocate
Case Title: B.S. Yeddyurappa vs. A. Alam Pasha & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 515
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 520/2021 with connected matters
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra
[Read/Download order]
