Apex court stays proceedings against B.S. Yediyurappa in corruption case

B.S. Yediyurappa
B.S. Yediyurappa

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the proceedings against former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa in a corruption complaint and issued notice to the complainant on his plea.
“Stay further proceedings as far as the petitioner is concerned,” the court said. A bench of justices D.Y. Chandrachud and Hima Kohli issued notice to complainant Abraham TJ and others.
Former Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa challenged the Karnataka High Court order which restored a bribery complaint filed against him and 8 others, including his son, under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Yediyurappa was represented by Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Siddharth Dave, and his petition was filed by advocate-on-record Kush Chaturvedi.
The Karnataka High Court on September 7 restored the bribery complaint against former chief minister B S Yediyurappa, his son B Y Vijayendra and 7 others. The Karnataka HC order had come on the complainant T.J. Abraham’s plea challenging a lower court order.
“The High Court also erred in holding that the statutory protection granted to public servants under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would not be an embargo on the power of the Ld. Magistrate/Special Court to order investigation under Section 156(3),” the plea said.
“That the High Court failed to appreciate that Section 17A of the PC Act is written in mandatory terms, and the use of the words “enquiry, inquiry, or investigation” in the aforesaid Section is indicative of the vast nature of the protection sought by Parliament to be granted to a public servant during any stage of a criminal trial or investigation,” it continued.
Whilst passing the impugned judgment, the High Court erroneously directed the rejection of the sanction (sought by the Respondent No. 1, the complainant) by the Governor, which ought to have been “ignored,” the plea said.
The plea further stated that the High Court ought not to have passed the direction in the face of an order passed by a high constitutional authority such as the Governor, more so without valid reasoning.