New Delhi: 

The Supreme Court on Monday deferred its order in a matter related to the prosecution of former Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa over land denotification cases and referred the case to a larger bench. A two-judge bench of the court said that to maintain judicial discipline and propriety, the matter should be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

Today, the bench said when the judges’ were about to start working on the judgment in the matter, then they learnt that there is another order passed by a coordinate bench that on April 16, 2024 in 'Shemin Khan Vs Debashish Chakraborty and others', where the very same issue has been referred to a larger bench. Justice Pardiwala said, “So, we felt that propriety demands…..”. At this juncture, senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Yediyurappa, said, It is our lapse that we did not point it out to the court, and “extremely sorry”.

The bench comprising justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra had on April 4, 2025, reserved the verdict in the matter. The case is regarding the applicability of prior sanction for the prosecution of a public servant in a corruption case.

The bench stressed that propriety demands that when two courts have referred the matter to a larger bench, therefore, it should also send this matter before the larger bench. “In this order also, we have formulated the issues but then we have said however, while preparing the judgement on the issue of applicability of Ayappa's decision, we came across an order of this court dated April 16, 2024 by a coordinate bench of this court, then we reproduced the entire order….as far as maintaining judicial discipline coordinated bench of this court has refrained from proceeding further and underlying issue. This is under reference to a larger bench,” said the bench.

Justice Misra said the reference is only on the ground of propriety. The bench made it clear that in this order, it has formulated the issues. The bench said to maintain judicial discipline and propriety, decided to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.

In an order on April 4, the apex court had said that the questions for consideration before it was: 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?

The bench said it deems it appropriate to tag these petitions to the referred matter, Manju Surana Vs Sunil Arora and others, and directed the registry to place these matters before the CJI for appropriate orders.

Whether the considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act are of such a nature that they are necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a Magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC? Whether the requirements introduced by Section 17A and the amended Section 19 of the PC Act could be said to be retrospectively applicable?

Among others, the bench also decided to consider whether it could be said that the First Proviso to Section 19 of the PC Act is detached from the substantive part contained in sub-section (1) of the said provision?

Read More : 

Indian Scientists Submit Detailed Project Report