
Supreme Court sends Yediyurappa's appeal against prosecution in land case to larger bench, cites judicial ‘propriety'
The Supreme Court Monday deferred its verdict on former Karnataka chief minister B S Yediyurappa's appeal against prosecution in a land denotification case, citing judicial 'propriety'. The court noted that the matter involved legal questions already under consideration by a larger bench in a different case and tagged Yediyurappa's plea to that case.
The bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra was considering Yediyurappa's appeal that raised the question of the need for prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute public servants.
The bench, which reserved its judgement in the batch of matters on April 10, said Monday that while drafting the judgement, it noted that another two-judge bench had dealt with the very same question in a case titled Shamin Khan vs. Debashish Chakrabarty and Ors. The bench refrained from deciding the case as it was of the view that the reference pending since 2018 should be decided first.
'When we were about to start working on it, we realised that there is one another order passed by a coordinate bench that is of April 16, 2024…Shamim Khan versus Debashish Chakrabarty and others, the very same issues are now again referred to the larger bench. So we felt that propriety demands (that this too be referred to the larger bench). Therefore, we have said this,' said Justice Pardiwala.
'As far as maintaining judicial discipline, the coordinate bench of this court has refrained from proceeding further in deciding the underlying issue, which is under reference to a larger bench. We deem it appropriate to tag these petitions with the referred matter Manju Surana versus Sunil Arora and others. Registry directed to place these matters before the honorable chief justice of India for appropriate honors,' Justice Pardiwala said, reading from Monday's order.
He added, 'in this order also, we have formulated the issues.'
Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for Yediyurappa, said, 'It is our lapse that we did not point this (pending larger reference) out. Extremely sorry.'
The case relates to allegations that Yediyurappa, as deputy chief minister in 2006, denotified land acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board in Bengaluru North taluk to set up a hardware park, thereby causing a loss to the state exchequer.
A trial court dismissed the complaint against Yediyurappa and then minister for large and medium-scale industries Katta Subramanya Naidu. But the Karnataka High Court in 2021 set aside the trial court order and directed the lower court to take cognisance of the charges against them. Yediyurappa subsequently approached the Supreme Court, challenging the high court order.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India Today
28 minutes ago
- India Today
Supreme Court grants interim relief to Rohingya woman facing deportation
The Supreme Court has granted interim relief to a Rohingya woman who was declared a foreigner by an Assam tribunal, staying her deportation and barring any coercive action until further orders. The top court also issued a notice to the Centre and the Assam government on the petition filed by Zainab Bibi.- Ends advertisement


Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
US Supreme Court greenlights Trump administration's deportations of illegal migrants to third countries
The US Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling allowing the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, a move that marks a significant victory for the administration's aggressive immigration policies. The decision, taken on June 23, 2025, temporarily blocks a lower court injunction that required the government to provide migrants with advance notice and an opportunity to challenge deportations to so-called 'third countries' where they might face risks such as torture or persecution. Three liberal justices - Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson - dissented strongly, warning that the ruling puts vulnerable migrants at risk of violence and torture. Justice Sotomayor wrote: 'In cases involving life and death, exercising caution is paramount. This Court's order exemplifies a blatant misuse of equitable authority.' Lower court ruling The controversy centers on the Trump administration's policy of deporting migrants - many with criminal convictions - to countries where they do not hold citizenship. This policy was challenged in a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant advocacy groups on behalf of migrants facing removal without adequate legal protections. In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts issued an injunction requiring the government to give migrants at least 15 days' notice and a meaningful chance to contest deportation orders to third countries, citing concerns about the migrants' safety. Murphy highlighted countries like South Sudan, where the US State Department warns of extreme violence, kidnapping, and armed conflict. Live Events The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had accelerated deportations to such countries starting in February 2025, prompting legal challenges. In one instance, migrants were flown to South Sudan but were redirected to Djibouti following the court order. Supreme Court's ruling on US deportation policy The Supreme Court's unsigned order suspends Judge Murphy's injunction while legal proceedings continue in lower courts. The majority ruling allows the administration to deport migrants swiftly to third countries without providing the previously mandated notice or opportunity to contest based on potential harm. The Department of Homeland Security hailed the ruling as a 'major victory' for national security and public safety. Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated: 'The Supreme Court ruling is a victory for the safety and security of the American people. The Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and now, the Trump Administration can exercise its undisputed authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare.' The administration emphasized that many deportees are violent offenders, including convicted murderers, child rapists, and drug traffickers, whose home countries refuse to accept them. The ruling enables DHS to deport such individuals to third countries that have agreed to accept them, even if they have no prior ties. Economic Times WhatsApp channel )
&w=3840&q=100)

First Post
3 hours ago
- First Post
Trump scores major win as Supreme Court lifts limits on third‑country deportations
In a major win for President Donald Trump's vow to remove illegal immigrants from the US, an unsigned order from the conservative-dominated top court came after the Justice Department lifted a stay imposed by a lower court on so-called third-country deportations read more The US Supreme Court has greenlit the Trump administration's plans to resume deportations of undocumented migrants to countries that are not their homeland. In a major win for President Donald Trump's vow to remove illegal immigrants from the US, an unsigned order from the conservative-dominated top court came after the Justice Department lifted a stay imposed by a lower court on so-called third-country deportations. The Supreme Court did not provide an explanation for the decision and the three liberal justices dissented. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The original case challenging the third country deportations will now be heard by an appeals court, but the Supreme Court's move allows the removals to proceed for now. Why was deportation blocked by the court? In April, the US top court paused the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members, citing an 18th-century law. The court was hearing an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union, arguing that deportations under the Trump 2.0 administration seem to be moving in the direction of removal under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Supreme Court had earlier noted that deportations are only possible if the ones who are supposed to be removed from the US have the chance to argue their case in court and were given 'a reasonable time' to contest their pending removals. 'Fire up the deportation planes' The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) welcomed the Supreme Court move as a 'victory for the safety and security of the American people.' 'If these activists judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets,' DHS said in a post on X. 'DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them,' it said. 'Fire up the deportation planes.' With inputs from agencies