SC Refers B.S. Yediyurappa corruption case to Larger Bench: Key Questions on Sanction, Probe Power Under Scanner

In a significant development, the Supreme Court has referred BJP leader and former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa corruption case to a larger bench, raising critical questions about prior sanction, judicial magistrate powers, and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A Twist in the Tale: SC Calls for Larger Bench to Settle Legal Questions

On April 4, 2025, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra reserved its verdict in a case that has political, legal, and ethical implications for public office bearers. At the center of the storm is BJP stalwart B.S. Yediyurappa, whose corruption case has now been referred to a larger bench due to overlapping legal issues identified in a similar matter.

Instead of delivering a ruling, Justice Pardiwala explained that while drafting the judgment, the bench stumbled upon an April 16, 2024, order by a coordinate bench that had already referred similar questions to a larger bench in a separate case—Manju Surana vs Sunil Arora.

In the interest of judicial propriety, the current bench decided not to proceed with the verdict but to tag the Yediyurappa case with the earlier referred matter.

What’s at Stake: The Core Legal Questions

The referral raises seven pivotal legal questions, primarily focusing on the interplay between the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), especially regarding the requirement of prior sanction.

Among the most critical questions:

1. Is prior sanction under Section 17A of the PC Act required even after a magistrate orders an inquiry under Section 156(3) CrPC?
2. Are the considerations for granting such sanction beyond what a magistrate evaluates while ordering an investigation?
3. Does a judicial order under CrPC override the statutory need for prior approval to probe a public servant?

These issues are not only central to Yediyurappa’s case but could shape the future legal landscape regarding the prosecution of public officials in India.

Background: The Corruption Allegations and Legal Journey

The case began with a complaint filed by Bengaluru-based businessman A. Alam Pasha, who accused Yediyurappa, former Industries Minister Murugesh R. Nirani, and Shivaswamy K.S., former Managing Director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra, of criminal conspiracy and corruption.

According to Pasha, the trio allegedly manipulated documents to revoke industrial land allotted to him at Devanahalli Industrial Area. The initial probe was carried out by the Lokayukta Police, but the Karnataka High Court quashed the case in 2013 due to lack of prior sanction, as mandated by Section 19 of the PC Act.

However, after the accused vacated their official positions, Pasha filed a fresh complaint in 2014, arguing that sanction was no longer required, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark A.R. Antulay case.

Yet again, the special judge dismissed the complaint in 2016 for want of sanction. Pasha then moved the Karnataka High Court, which partially allowed his petition in 2021, reviving the complaint against Yediyurappa and others but excluding retired IAS officer V.P. Baligar.

Legal Loophole or Legitimate Procedure? The Sanction Dilemma

At the heart of the matter is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a provision inserted in 2018 to protect honest public servants from vexatious probes. It mandates prior approval before any investigation can be initiated into decisions made in official capacity.

However, this clashes with Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which allows a magistrate to order an investigation based on a private complaint. The Supreme Court will now decide whether a magistrate’s direction can override the statutory protection granted by Section 17A.

This decision could redefine how corruption cases against public officials are initiated in India.

BJP’s Political Heavyweight in Legal Quagmire

For B.S. Yediyurappa, one of Karnataka’s tallest leaders, this is more than just a legal battle—it’s a question of legacy. A four-time Chief Minister and BJP veteran, Yediyurappa has been at the center of several political storms. His involvement in this case revives old debates about political accountability, transparency, and the fine line between governance and corruption.

The Supreme Court’s decision to escalate the case adds weight to the proceedings, signaling that the outcome could have far-reaching implications for other public servants and elected officials.

What Happens Next?

The case is now in the hands of the Chief Justice of India, who will constitute a larger bench to deliberate the seven questions raised. Until then, all proceedings remain on hold.

For legal experts, lawmakers, and the public alike, this case offers a crucial lens into how Indian law reconciles the need for accountability with safeguards against misuse of power.

A Defining Moment for Judicial Precedent

The referral of Yediyurappa’s case to a larger bench is not just a procedural move—it’s a bold legal step that promises to clarify long-contested areas of Indian criminal jurisprudence. As the country watches, the final ruling may shape not just the outcome of one case, but the entire framework for prosecuting public officials in India.