Supreme Court Issues Notice on IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri’s Plea Against Karnataka HC Order in ₹7.6 Crore Cloth Bag Procurement Case.
The Supreme Court has taken up a significant legal challenge filed by senior IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri (IAS:2009:Karnataka) and issued notices to the Karnataka Government as well as the original complainant in connection with the alleged ₹7.6 crore eco-friendly cloth bag procurement case. The matter revolves around a Karnataka High Court order that directed the State Government to grant sanction for a preliminary investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The development has attracted considerable attention within administrative and legal circles because it raises important questions about the limits of judicial intervention, the powers of the executive in granting sanction for investigation against public servants, and the legal significance of departmental inquiries that have already cleared an officer of wrongdoing.
Supreme Court Seeks Replies from Karnataka Government and Complainant
A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu heard the matter on Friday and issued formal notices to the Karnataka Government and the complainant, seeking their responses to Rohini Sindhuri’s petition.
The hearing gained additional significance when the Karnataka Government informed the apex court that it too disagreed with the Karnataka High Court’s direction requiring the State to grant sanction for a preliminary investigation.
This means that both the IAS officer and the State Government are challenging the same High Court order, although on separate legal grounds. The Supreme Court has now asked the respondents to place their replies on record before proceeding further with the case.
Why Rohini Sindhuri Approached the Supreme Court
Representing Rohini Sindhuri, Senior Advocate K. Parmeshwar argued that the Karnataka Government had already examined the allegations through the procedure prescribed under law.
According to the submissions made before the apex court, the State Government had earlier declined to grant sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act after conducting a departmental examination of the allegations. The inquiry reportedly found no evidence of misconduct on the part of the IAS officer.
The petition contends that despite this decision, the Karnataka High Court effectively overruled the executive’s statutory discretion by directing the government to accord sanction for a preliminary investigation. According to Sindhuri’s counsel, such a direction virtually amounts to granting approval on behalf of the executive, something the High Court was not expected to do under the statutory framework.
State Government Also Challenges the High Court’s Direction
One of the notable aspects of the hearing was the Karnataka Government’s stand before the Supreme Court.Counsel appearing for the State informed the Bench that the government itself is opposed to the High Court’s direction and is independently challenging the order.
This unusual situation places both the officer concerned and the State Government on the same side regarding the question of sanction for investigation. Taking note of these submissions, the Supreme Court decided to issue notices and seek detailed responses before examining the legal issues involved.
Background of the Karnataka High Court Order
The dispute originates from an order delivered on April 1, 2026, by Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Ravichandra Gowda, who had questioned the State Government’s refusal to grant sanction for a preliminary inquiry into the procurement process.
After considering the matter, the High Court directed the Karnataka Government to accord sanction for a preliminary investigation within four weeks. While delivering its judgment, the High Court observed that a departmental inquiry clearing an officer could not automatically prevent criminal scrutiny if the allegations disclosed a prima facie case requiring examination.
The court also noted that disciplinary proceedings and criminal investigations operate in different legal spheres. Therefore, an officer’s exoneration in departmental proceedings cannot by itself become a barrier to the initiation of criminal investigation where the facts warrant independent scrutiny.
The Alleged Cloth Bag Procurement Controversy
The allegations relate to the period when Rohini Sindhuri served as the Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru in 2021. During her tenure, the district administration implemented an initiative aimed at reducing plastic pollution by promoting the use of reusable eco-friendly cloth bags. The programme formed part of a broader campaign to discourage plastic carry bags and encourage environmentally sustainable alternatives.
According to the complainant, the district administration procured cloth bags at approximately ₹52 per bag, whereas similar bags were allegedly available in the retail market for nearly ₹13 each.
Based on this price difference, the complainant alleged that the procurement caused an estimated financial loss of around ₹7.6 crore to the state exchequer. These allegations eventually led to demands for an independent investigation into the procurement process.
Departmental Inquiry Had Given the Officer a Clean Chit
Before approaching the Supreme Court, Rohini Sindhuri relied heavily on the findings of the departmental inquiry conducted by the Karnataka Government. According to her petition, the government had carefully examined the allegations through its internal administrative mechanism before deciding not to grant sanction for investigation.
The departmental process reportedly concluded that there was no misconduct warranting criminal action against the officer. Based on those findings, the State declined permission for investigation under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Sindhuri’s legal team argues that the High Court’s subsequent direction effectively nullified the statutory protection available to public servants performing official duties, despite the government’s earlier decision based on its departmental assessment.
Legal Significance of Section 17A
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act provides an important procedural safeguard for public servants. The provision requires prior approval from the competent authority before any investigation can be initiated into decisions taken by a public servant while discharging official responsibilities. The objective is to protect honest administrative decision-making from unnecessary criminal proceedings while still permitting investigation in appropriate cases after due approval.
The present dispute essentially revolves around the interpretation and application of this statutory safeguard. The Supreme Court is expected to examine whether a High Court can direct the executive to grant sanction when the competent authority has already declined approval after conducting its own examination of the matter.
Broader Administrative and Legal Questions
The outcome of this litigation could have implications extending beyond the present dispute. The case touches upon the relationship between departmental proceedings and criminal investigations, the extent of judicial review over executive decisions involving sanction for prosecution or investigation, and the scope of statutory protections available to civil servants under anti-corruption laws.
Legal experts believe the judgment may provide further clarity on how courts should balance the need for accountability with protections intended to enable public officials to perform their duties without fear of unwarranted criminal action.
Matter to Be Heard in Detail
With notices now issued, the Supreme Court has initiated formal proceedings on Rohini Sindhuri’s petition. The Karnataka Government and the original complainant will file their responses before the apex court examines the merits of the challenge. The Court will ultimately decide whether the Karnataka High Court was justified in directing the State Government to grant sanction for a preliminary investigation despite its earlier refusal based on departmental findings.
Until the matter is finally adjudicated, the legal questions surrounding the alleged cloth bag procurement case, the scope of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight will remain at the centre of this closely watched litigation.
