The Karnataka High Court has asked the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to reconsider and pass appropriate orders on the request of the complainant seeking sanction for prosecution as required under Section 19 of the Prevention Of Corruption Act against the accused members of the Legislative Assembly. The High Court explained that the legal requirement of the statute regarding obtaining sanction of prosecution would suffice if permission is obtained from the Speaker of the House before filing the charge-sheet.

The case revolved around a corruption complaint involving MLAs K. Srinivas Gowda, H.D. Kumaraswamy, S.R. Vishwanath, Dr. Ashwath Narayana C.N. and Ex-MLA C. P. Yogeshwar.

The High Court was considering a petition filed by the complainant seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to set aside the communication addressed to the complainant whereby the Deputy Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Secretariat had taken the stand that the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is not the authority to appoint the Elected Representatives and accordingly the question of granting sanction for the purpose of carrying out investigation or initiation of prosecution or registering a complaint does not arise.

The Single Bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav held, “Needless to state though section 19 provides for “…accord sanction to prosecute” the legal requirement of the statue regarding obtaining sanction of prosecution cannot be insisted upon, it would suffice if permission is obtained from the Speaker of the House before filing of charge-sheet. Though such permission is required to be obtained by the Prosecution Agency where the proceeding is in the nature of a private complaint, the complainant himself may be called upon to obtain such permission at the same stage where sanction for prosecution has to be obtained as stipulated under Section 19 of the P.C.Act, where the court not having dismissed the complaint under Section 203 intends to proceed further. Thus, when the Trial Court has called upon the complainant to obtain sanction, the response made at Annexure-‘F’ does not satisfy compliance of the order of the court.”

Factual Background

The petitioner had filed a complaint arraying as, the accused Members of the Legislative Assembly seeking that the court may take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 7, 8, 12, 13 (1)(b), 13 (2) and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120A and 120B, 171B, 201, 202 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code. It was averred in the complaint that the first accused had stated in public that accused 3 to 5 had lured him to cross (over from the JD (S) Party to the BJP Party by offering Rs 30 crore, and in that regard, an advance of Rs 5 crore was paid and received by accused 1. It was further alleged that the amount offered as a bribe for switching over to a political party and received by the first accused was later returned to the accused 3 to 5 at the instance of the second accused.

Proceedings in the private complaint filed had progressed. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused had approached the High Court challenging the validity of the order whereby the Trial Court had taken cognisance of the offences. The Trial Court had then directed the issuance of process to the accused persons, summoning them to appear before the court. Such direction of the Trial Court came to be set aside. During the pendency of the proceedings, the accused approached the court with a writ petition challenging the validity of the order whereby the Trial Court took cognizance of the offences.

The direction of the Trial Court came to be set aside with certain directions in the writ petitions. It was further noted that the complainant had approached the Deputy Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly seeking sanction, which was refused by the Speaker. The request made to the court for further direction to the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly to grant sanction for prosecution was, however, rejected while observing “await sanction by 12.07.2022”. Thus, the petitioner challenged such refusal.

Reasoning

Referring to the judgments of the Apex Court in P.V.Narasimha Rao and Others v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998), the Bench reaffirmed that in the absence of an authority competent to remove a Member of Parliament and to grant sanction for his prosecution under section 19 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the court can take cognizance of the offences mentioned in section 19 (1), in the absence of sanction. It was further observed therein that till such provision is made by the Parliament in that regard, the Prosecuting Agency, before filing a charge sheet in respect of offences referred to in section 19, is required to obtain permission of the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha / Speaker of the Lok Sabha as the case maybe. “Such opinion has been concurred with by Justice G.N. Ray in his separate opinion…”, the Bench added.

The Bench thus held, “Accordingly, it is clear that though sanction cannot be taken, however till such time Parliament makes necessary provision even before charge sheet is filed, the permission of the Speaker of the House is required to be taken. The law laid down though in the context of Members of Parliament could ipso-facto be extended to Legislators of the Assembly.”

The Bench thus set aside the impugned communication and directed the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly to reconsider and pass appropriate orders on the request of the complainant.

Cause Title: Abraham TJ. v. The Hon’ble Speaker (Neutral Citation: 2026:KHC:28594)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates H.S. Gaurav, Kaushik Ambati, Rajavardhana Reddy B.

Respondent: Additional Special Public Prosecutor Jagadish B.N.

Click here to read/download Order



Karnataka High CourtJustice Sunil Dutt Yadav

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.