Protection U/S 17A PC Act A Shield For Innocent, Not A Sanctuary For Culpable: Karnataka High Court Directs Investigation In Swachh Bharat Mission Funds Misappropriation Case
It was alleged that crores were misappropriated by procuring bags at nearly four times the market, using funds diverted from the Swachh Bharat Mission.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the statutory protection afforded to public servants under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is intended to prevent frivolous or vexatious litigation against an innocent, rather than to provide absolute immunity to the guilty. It said that the requirement for prior sanction must not be utilised by the State as a tool to stifle legitimate investigations into allegations of financial irregularities and misappropriation of public funds.
In the matter, a complaint was filed by an activist alleging a multi-crore scam in the procurement of eco-friendly cloth bags in Mysuru during 2021. It was alleged that approximately ₹7.55 crores were misappropriated by procuring bags at nearly four times the market rate, specifically ₹52 per bag against a retail price of ₹13, using funds diverted from the Swachh Bharat Mission. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) had sought approval from the State Government under Section 17A of the PC Act to investigate the role of the then Deputy Commissioner and other officials involved in the decision-making process.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “Section 17A was introduced by way of amendment in the year 2018, was conceived as a safeguard to shield honest public servants from vexatious and frivolous prosecution arising out of bonafide decisions taken in the discharge of official duties. However, such a provision was never intended to operate, as a protective cloak for those, against whom, credible allegations of corruption are laid, albeit, prima facie. It is a shield for the innocent, not a sanctuary for the culpable”.
Advocate Bipin Hegde appeared for the petitioner and B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional SPP appeared for the respondent.
The procedural history of the case involved a persistent refusal by the State to grant the requested approval. An initial rejection on September 19, 2022 was quashed by a coordinate Bench of the High Court for being an unreasoned order, with a direction to reconsider the matter. On remand, the Government issued a second order on May 26, 2025, again declining approval by citing that the officer had been exonerated in a departmental inquiry. This second refusal formed the basis of the current challenge before the Court.
Now, the Court noted that the State’s second rejection was a copy of the first, demonstrating a failure to exercise independent mind. The Court noting that the allegations involve inflation of procurement prices, held,
“Such a decision, by its very nature and consequence, cannot be placed beyond the pale of scrutiny under the Provisions in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The approval sought under Section 17A, pertains to a case where which, at least prima facie discloses elements of corruption…what emerges is not a frivolous accusation, but a set of allegations that warrant, at the very least, a thorough and impartial investigation. The spectre of corruption once raised, on the basis of material placed on record, cannot be summarily extinguished at the threshold. It must be allowed to unfold through the process of investigation, which alone can ascertain the truth. It is equally well settled that a mere exoneration of an officer in departmental proceedings cannot by itself foreclose the initiation of criminal investigation on the same set of facts. Departmental proceedings and criminal prosecution operate in distinct spheres, governed by distinct standards of proof and objectives. The closure of one does not ipso facto extinguish the other. The impugned order, in the considerate view of the Court is perfunctory, bereft of substantive reasoning and reflective of mechanical exercise of power. It fails to engage with the gravity of the allegation or material on record and thus, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny”.
“…in the peculiar facts of the present case, render such a course, both unnecessary and unwarranted. The coordinate bench had already issued a clear mandate to reconsider the matter in accordance with law. Yet, the Government instead of undertaking a meaningful re-evaluation, has chosen to reiterate its earlier position, albeit, with a little justification. In the circumstances, a further remand would serve no fruitful purpose and would only prolong the process to the detriment of justice”, it further noted.
The Court, thus, on finding that a further remand to the State would be unnecessary and unwarranted, given the Government's repetitive stance, issued a Mandamus directing the State to grant the necessary approval under Section 17A of the PC Act within four weeks to facilitate the registration of an FIR and subsequent investigation.
Cause Title: Ravichandre Gowda N.R. v. State of Karnataka & Others (W.P. No. 2783 of 2026)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Bipin Hegde, Advocate.
Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, Addl. SPP, B. Lethif, Advocate.