Supreme Court invokes Nehru, quashes FIR against BJP's R Ashoka

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a first information report (FIR) and related proceedings against Karnataka’s Leader of the Opposition R Ashoka in a land-allotment corruption case [R Ashoka v. State of Karnataka].

The Bench comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M Pancholi held that the action appeared politically driven and there was failure to comply with mandatory legal requirements.

The Court placed significant weight on the circumstances surrounding the complaints and the absence of statutory sanction. The court observed that the record itself suggested political animus.

"The actions against the appellant ex facie appear to be politically motivated and thereby afflicted by malice, even if delay was kept aside, the prosecution of the appellant could not proceed in the eyes of the law," the judgment said.

Pertinently, since the case pertained to allotment of land to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, the Court invoked India's first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru's 'Tryst with Destiny' speech in which he said,

“The service of India means the service of the millions who suffer. It means the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity.”

The case arose from complaints alleging irregularities in land allotments during Ashoka’s time as Chairman of the Committee for Regularisation of Unauthorized Occupation.

The complainants claimed that lands meant for Scheduled Castes and Tribes were allegedly given to others, including relatives and supporters of officials.

The allegations regarding irregularities in land allotments were initially submitted to the Karnataka Lokayukta in 2012, prompting an inquiry.

The Lokayukta, after assessing records and official correspondence, found no basis to proceed against Ashoka.

It recorded that the allegations were “misconceived and without proper verification of the matter.”

A second complaint filed thereafter was also closed on similar grounds.

Despite these findings, complainants approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in 2017 and 2018, resulting in the present FIR.

Consequently, Ashoka moved the Karnataka High Court but the High Court declined to interfere, stating that allegations concerning state land required full investigation and could not be dismissed at the outset.

Ashoka then moved the Supreme Court.

The apex court examined the nature and history of the complaints, observing that the allegations against Ashoka had been brought up repeatedly, even though earlier inquiries had found no basis for action.

Although the complainants attempted to project their grievances as distinct or newly supported by evidence, the Court found that the underlying allegations remained the same.

The Court also explained that mala fide intent must be inferred from the overall circumstances such as the identity of the complainants, the timing of the complaints and the absence of any new supporting material.

Hence, the judgment recorded that each complaint originated from political rivals, suggesting a coordinated effort to revive issues that investigative bodies had already closed.

The Court observed that allegations, even if taken at face value, did not prima facie constitute an offence against Ashoka.

The bench also proceeded to examine the procedural lapses inherent in the investigation.

It noted that the inquiry could not have started without prior sanction of the government under Section 197 or Code of Criminal Procedure (prior sanction to prosecute government official for an offence done in discharge of his official duty), yet the records showed that no such approval had ever been obtained.

"Not to overextend the issue, it is seen that the record is conspicuously silent on any sanction having been obtained against the appellant. Since no investigation could have begun without such sanction, the preliminary Report of the ACB, subsequent FIR and any and all proceedings thereafter have operated in the face of an express bar,” said the Court.

It said that the sanction requirement exists precisely to prevent situations like this, where old allegations are recycled without substantive grounds.

In contrast to the High Court’s view, the Supreme Court held that the repeated complaints, the earlier closure of the case by the Lokayukta, the lack of mandatory sanction, and the apparent political motive behind the allegations made it unjustifiable to let the proceedings continue.

Hence, it quashed the FIR and all consequent proceedings.

Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Sajan Poovayya and Gaurav Agrawal appeared for R Ashoka.

Senior Advocates Harin Raval and PB Suresh and advocate Aman Panwar represented the State of Karnataka.

[Read Judgment]