'Politically Motivated' : Supreme Court Quashes Land Allotment Corruption Case Against Karnataka BJP Leader R Ashoka

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (December 16) quashed the corruption case against Karnataka's Leader of Opposition & BJP MLA R. Ashoka in an alleged irregularity made in the land allotment during his tenure as the Chairman of the Committee for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation.

An FIR was registered by the State's Anti-Corruption Bureau to investigate the allegations made regarding illegalities in land allotments during Mr. Ashoka's committee tenure, where it was complained that during his tenure, illegal allotment of government land meant for SC/ST and poor was made to his family members, political followers, and corporators.

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision refusing to quash the FIR, Ashoka moved to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the impugned decision, the bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi found that the proceedings initiated against the Appellant, being a public servant, was without obtaining a sanction order from the State Government.

“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.”, the court noted.

The judgment authored by Justice Karol noted that the proceedings against the appellant were motivated by bad faith and malice. This was because, despite the Lokayukta having twice found insufficient material to proceed against the appellant, the instant FIR was filed by repackaging stale allegations.

"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."

“In the present facts, it has to be noted that three complaints making the same and similar allegations... have been made and on two occasions the Lokayukta has... observed the lack of any material to proceed.”, the Court said.

In essence, the judgment emphasized that exoneration by a competent quasi-judicial body (Lokayukta) should not be lightly overturned without fresh, credible material.

Appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: R. ASHOKA Versus STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1214

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Gaurav Agraval, Sr. Adv. Mr. Darpan K.M., Adv. Ms. Amrita Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajat Jonathan Shaw, Adv. Mr. Durgha Prakash Venugopal, Adv. Ms. Easha Chandhok, Adv. Ms. Rashi Bansal, Adv. Ms. Hetu Arora Sethi, AOR Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sajan Poovayya, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Ankit Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Singh, Adv. Ms. Sanjanthi Sajan Poovayya, Adv. Mr. Plash Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Adithya Nair, Adv. Ms. Abha Saigal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. P.B. Suresh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bharti, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR Ms. M B Ramya, Adv. Mr. Vikram Hegde, AOR Ms. Chinmayi Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Harin P. Rawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aman Pawar, A.A.G. (Karnataka) Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Adv. Mr. Manav Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Rawal, Adv. Ms. Shreya Bansal, Adv. Ms. Urmi Rawal, Adv. Ms. Shrestha Narayan, Adv.