Karnataka High Court Directs State To Grant S.17A Sanction To Investigate Rohini Sindhuri IAS In Cloth Bag Scam

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a government order refusing the sanction to investigate IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri, former Mysuru Deputy Commissioner, in the alleged 'eco-friendly cloth bags procurement' scam.

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna directed the state to provide approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to sanction preliminary investigation within four weeks. The court underscored that departmental exoneration cannot be utilised by the state to shield the accused officer from 'even the threshold scrutiny of criminal investigation'.

“…To hold otherwise, would be to conflate two distinct legal regimes - crime and a departmental enquiry, each governed by its own objectives, standards, and evidentiary thresholds. The complaint registered was neither vague or speculative. It did set out, with clarity and documentary support, allegation that prima facie discloses abuse of the office and consequential financial loss to the state. If such material does not even warrant the grant of approval to initiate investigation under Section 17A, this Court is constrained to ponder what would…”, the court accordingly set out in the order.

The plea filed by Ravichandra Gowda, a social activist and lawyer, against the latest government order refusing approval for an investigation against the public servant. The allegation against the IAS officer pertains to procuring cloth bags at Rs 52/- per bag whereas similar quality bags were easily available in the retail market at the rate of Rs 13/-. According to the complainant, the suspicious decision by the Deputy Commissioner cost the state exchequer nearly Rs 7.6 crores.

The IAS officer had previously made a decision to ban plastic bags and distribute eco-friendly cloth bags to the residents of Mysuru when she was the city's Commissioner in 2021.

Application of Section 17A

Section 17A states that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the 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 prior approval of the concerned government.

The court opined that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act should is only a shield for the innocent, not a sanctuary for the culpable. The court added that the 'spectre of corruption, once raised…. cannot be summarily extinguished at the threshold.'

The High Court clarified that Section 17A should not 'stifle legitimate inquiry into serious allegations of corruption' since the provision is only intended to avoid 'frivolous harassment'. The court added that no law exists which prevents criminal action against an officer who has been exonerated in departmental enquiry.

“…If any officer is exonerated in a departmental enquiry, it is no law that even the crime cannot be registered”, the court said by relying on Karnataka Lokayuktha Bagalkote District, Bagalkot V. Chandrashekar, 2026 LiveLaw SC 15.

“…What is projected is not a mere administrative lapse, but a decision whose ramifications allegedly extend to grave financial detriment to public funds…Compounding the gravity of the matter, is the allegation that funds earmarked for welfare schemes intended to benefit the economically vulnerable sections within the Grama Panchayath, were diverted to this procurement, thereby inflicting substantial loss upon the public treasury. 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 Court emphasized that exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot act as a "protective shield" to insulate a public servant from the threshold scrutiny of a criminal investigation.

Allegation 'Strikes At The Very Heart Of Public Probity'

The court, after hearing the arguments of both sides, noted in the order that the eco cloth bag controversy 'strikes at the very heart of public probity' and discloses 'prima facie elements of corruption'. The court emphasised why investigation would be a must in such public corruption scandals by relying on excerpts from Centre For Public Interest Litigation v. Union India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 43.

“…The jurisprudence of the Apex Court resounds with a singular unambiguous theme, corruption is an insidious menace, variously described as cancer, a plague, and a contagion that if left unchecked, has the potential to destabilise the polity and corrode democratic institutions. The Apex Court has unequivocally held that corruption is an enemy of the nation and that pursuit, detection and punishment of corrupt public servants, irrespective of their rank or stature, is not merely permissible, but a constitutional and statutory imperative under the Act”, the court thereafter opined.

The court observed that though the matter was remanded back to the state for a fresh order on prosecution, the government chose to issue a 'verbatim similar' fresh order dated May 26,2025 declining approval for investigation. A coordinate bench of High Court had quashed the initial order by the state for the lack of application of mind.

Earlier, the Anti-Corruption Bureau had sought approval to investigate the matter in 2021. Criticising the state for 'not meaningfully reevaluating' its earlier order, instead of remanding the matter again to the state government, the court directed the Chief Secretary to grant approval for investigation against the officer within 4 weeks.

Case Title: Sri Ravichandre Gowda N.R. v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 2783 of 2026

Click here to read the judgment