The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to grant approval under the Prevention of Corruption Act to book IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri, who, in 2021, as the Mysuru deputy commissioner, allegedly procured ‘eco-friendly’ cloth bags at a price higher than market rate, causing a loss to the tune of Rs 5,88,58,320 to the exchequer.

The high court ordered the Karnataka Government to grant the approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Section 17A mandates that no police officer will 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.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Advocate and social activist Ravichandra Gowda, and in its order dated March 27.

“The controversy that arises for consideration in the present list is one that strikes at the very heart of public probity. The spectre of corruption once raised, on the basis of material placed on record, cannot be summarily extinguished at the threshold. It must be allowed to unfold through the process of investigation, which alone can ascertain the truth,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

“This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to direct the 1st respondent/Government to accord approval for the registration of the FIR and for the conduct of an investigation, in accordance with law.”

Accusations against Rohini Sindhuri

In 2021, a decision was taken to address waste management issues in the Mysuru district under the chairmanship of Rohini Sindhuri. It was decided to ban the use of plastic bags and to distribute eco-friendly cloth bags to all residents.

The Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation was issued a work order to procure 5 kg and 10 kg capacity eco-friendly cloth bags at Rs 52 per bag, including GST. As many as 14,71,458 bags were to be purchased at an estimated cost of Rs 7,65,15,816.

However, it was alleged that the same eco-friendly bags were being sold in the retail market at Rs 13 per bag.

Following Gowda’s complaint, the then Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) wrote to the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) seeking approval under Section 17A of the Act. It was rejected by an order dated September 19, 2022.

Gowda then challenged it before the Karnataka High Court, which allowed the petition, set aside the government order, and directed it to reconsider afresh. Following this, the impugned order dated May 26, 2025, was passed.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Bipin Hegde argued that the coordinate bench had clearly held that a fresh order was required, as the challenged order suffered from a want of application of mind. Hegde also said that the officer’s exoneration by the Disciplinary Authority is no ground for declining approval.

Additional State Public Prosecutor B N Jagadeesha placed on record the case file and contended that the impugned order was passed as the officer was exonerated in a departmental inquiry.

Shield vs sanctuary

In its order, the high court bench noted that funds belonging to other local bodies, meant for development purposes, were diverted to this purpose and were directed to be deposited into the account of Sindhuri.

The bench referred to the previous order declining approval and the present order before the court, both of which proceeded on the basis that the officer had been exonerated in the departmental inquiry initiated against Sindhuri.

“The closure of such proceedings cannot in law, operate as a protective shield insulating the officer from even the threshold scrutiny of criminal investigation, the threshold scrutiny being an approval under Section 17A of the Act and the consequent registration of the crime, for the purpose of inquiry, enquiry or investigation,” Justice Nagaprasanna said.

“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.”

Highlighting that the complaint registered was neither ‘vague’ nor ‘speculative’, the bench said, “It did set out, with clarity and documentary support, an 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.

Remarking on the two government orders declining approval, the bench said, “If any officer is exonerated in a departmental enquiry, it is no law that even the crime cannot be registered.”

Allowing the petition, the court said, “The provision (Section 17A) was never intended to operate as a protective cloak for those against whom credible allegations of corruption are laid, albeit prima facie. It is a shield for the innocent, not a sanctuary for the culpable.”