CJI UU Lalit Recuses From Hearing Former Karnataka CM BS Yediyurappa's Petition In Land De-notification Case

Chief Justice UU Lalit, on Friday, recused himself from hearing petition filed by Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and former State Industries Minister Murugesh Nirani, against a Karnataka High Court order allowing restoration of a criminal case against them in the alleged illegal land de-notification case. The matter was mentioned before a bench comprising Chief Justice Lalit and Justice Hemant Gupta.

CJI Lalit stated–

"I can't take this matter. List it before a bench where I am not a member. I have some difficulty, I can't take this matter."

Background

The case relates to the denotification of 1.11 acre land at Gangenahalli, which is part of the Matadahalli layout in RT Nagar in the city in which former Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy and others are also accused. Based on a complaint by social activist Jayakumar Hiremath, the Lokayukta police had on 05.05.2015 registered a case under sections 13(1)(c), 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 409, 413, 420, 120(b) r/w 34 IPC and sections 3 and 4 of The Karnataka Land (Restriction on Transfer) Act, 1991.

On December 23, 2020 the Karnataka High Court had refused to quash another criminal complaint registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, against the then Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, who is alleged of de-notifying parcels of land and allotting it to entrepreneurs, during his tenure as the Deputy Chief Minister of the state, between February 2006 and October 2007.

The Karnataka High Court had also imposed a cost of Rs 25,000 on him.

Plea before Supreme Court

In his plea before the Supreme Court, Yediyurappa submitted–

"...by virtue of the impugned Judgement, the Hon'ble High Court erroneously set aside the aforesaid Order only on the ground that the Petitioner had demitted the Office which had allegedly been abused by him at the time of commission of the alleged Offence and therefore no sanction was necessary to be obtained. The same is contrary to the settled law laid down by this Hon'ble Court in a catena of judgements as well as the provisions of the amended PC Act."

Subsequent to the enactment of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act 2018, the Petitioner submitted, Section 19 thereof offer protection to a Public servant, "who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State...". Thus, it was contended that the impugned Judgement ought to be set aside on this ground alone.

Reference was also made to Section 197 of CrPC which mandates obtaining prior sanction for prosecution of Judges and public servants.

Inter alia, it was submitted that the intention of the Parliament to offer protection to a Public Servant is also evident from the insertion of Section 17A (Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences related to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties) into the PC Act, which provides that–

No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval— (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government.

In 2021, bench led by CJI SA Bobde had admitted the special leave petition and stayed the arrest of Yediyurappa.

CASE TITLE: BS Yediyurappa v A Alam Pasha SLP(Crl) No. 520/2021

Click Here To Read/Download Order