Karnataka HC directs govt. to allow FIR, probe against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri over alleged corruption charges

In an unprecedented verdict, the High Court of Karnataka has directed the State government to grant sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to enable an investigation against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri and others by registering a First Information Report (FIR) on a complaint alleging corruption in the procurement of eco‑friendly cloth bags at exorbitant prices while she was serving as Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru, in 2021.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while allowing a petition filed by Mysuru-based advocate and social activist Ravichandre Gowda N.R.

The petitioner had questioned State government’s second Government Order, dated May 26, 2025, rejecting the request made by the erstwhile Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), now Lokayukta police, seeking permission under Section 17A of the PC Act from the competent authority for conducting a probe on the allegations against Ms. Sindhuri and the then managing director of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation (KHDC), which had supplied the bags.

‘₹13 bags purchased for ₹52’

The case dates back to March, 2021, when a meeting chaired by Ms. Sindhuri as DC decided to ban plastic bags in Mysuru district and procure eco-friendly cloth bags. The KHDC was issued work orders to supply 14.71 lakh bags at ₹52 per bag, totalling ₹7.65 crore.

The petitioner, in his complaint to the then ACB, had alleged that identical bags were available in the retail market at just ₹13 per bag, claiming the State exchequer suffered a loss of approximately ₹5.88 crore. He further alleged that funds earmarked for development schemes in gram panchayats were diverted towards the procurement of these bags.

The erstwhile ACB had initially requested the government to accord permission for a probe under Section 17A in 2021. As the government, on September 19, 2022, refused permission, the petitioner had filed a petition in the High Court, which, in February 2025, quashed the government’s decision of refusing permission, directing the government to pass an order afresh.

Following this, the government had passed the present order on May 26, 2025, again refusing permission for conducting a probe by registering an FIR by citing the exoneration of Ms. Sindhuri in a departmental inquiry conducted through a retired district judge.

However, Justice Nagaprasanna said that “the exoneration in a departmental proceeding cannot, in law, operate as a protective shield insulating the officer from even the threshold scrutiny of criminal investigation.”

“The complaint registered was neither vague nor speculative,” the court observed. “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.”

‘Not frivolous allegations’

In this case, the court said, what emerges is “a set of allegations that warrant, at the very least, a thorough and impartial investigation” while refusing to give a third chance to the government to take a decision on granting permission.

The court noted it would have normally remitted the case for fresh consideration, but such an exercise would not only be “unfruitful but would also prolong the process to the detriment of justice” as the government, instead of a meaningful review, had repeated its earlier view with minimal justification despite an opportunity given by the court in February 2025.

Terming the government’s decision of rejecting permission as “perfunctory, bereft of substantive reasoning,” the Court said that the decision “fails to engage with the gravity of the allegation or material on record, and thus, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny.”