Karnataka High Court Restores PIL Seeking Prosecution Sanction Against Former CM Over Mining Licences

The Karnataka High Court on October 27, 2026 restored a public interest litigation seeking sanction for prosecution against former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah over the alleged illegal grant and renewal of mining licences. A two-member bench led by Justice Anu Sivaraman set aside its order dated September 19, 2025 dismissing the petition for continuous absence of the petitioner. The restoration revives the plea filed in April 2025 by businessman M P Venugopal seeking directions to the State government and the Governor to grant prior permission to prosecute the former Chief Minister.

Venugopal had moved an interim application seeking recall of the dismissal. The bench accepted the explanation for non-appearance and recalled the September order, restoring the PIL to its original number for hearing on merits. It returned no finding on the correctness of the mining-licence allegations. It expressed no view on whether permission to prosecute should be granted. The effect is procedural. The petition is back on board.

According to the pleadings noted by the bench, the original petition filed in April 2025 drew upon facts earlier raised in a private complaint dismissed by the trial court. It asked the High Court to direct the competent authorities, including the State government and the Governor, to consider and grant prior approval for criminal proceedings against Siddaramaiah in his capacity as former Chief Minister. The allegation, as framed, is that mining licences were granted and renewed illegally during his tenure. The petition did not by itself result in prosecution. It sought only the threshold permission required before a court can take cognizance against certain functionaries.

Why sanction for prosecution was sought

The petition turns on what is prosecution sanction in Indian criminal law. It is the prior approval the law requires before a court can take cognizance of certain offences alleged to have been committed by a judge, magistrate, police officer or other public servant in connection with official duty. The rule does not give immunity. It guards against vexatious proceedings while allowing genuine complaints to proceed after independent application of mind by the competent authority. Here the petitioner has argued that such approval is needed from the State government and the Governor before the complaint over mining licences can move forward. The High Court has not yet decided whether that argument is correct on facts or law.

The older framework for this approval is usually described as prosecution sanction under CrPC. Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 laid down the bar on cognizance without prior sanction for acts done in discharge of official duty. That Code has now been replaced for new cases by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The parallel provision is now discussed as prosecution sanction under BNSS, particularly Section 218 of the new law which continues the requirement of prior sanction with timelines for decision. Where corruption is alleged, a separate regime applies. That is described as prosecution sanction under PC Act, namely Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which requires prior sanction from the competent authority before a court takes cognizance of offences under that Act. Mining-licence cases often raise both sets of questions, because the complaint may allege abuse of official power as well as criminal misconduct.

The case law in this field is often summarised as prosecution sanction for public servants. Courts have said the authority must examine the material independently and must not act mechanically, and refusal or grant must show application of mind. Counsel in such matters often cite the latest Supreme Court judgement on prosecution sanction to argue about who is the competent authority, what material must be placed before that authority, and how much time the authority may take. Those arguments remain to be made in the present PIL. The restoration order does not decide whether the Governor or the State government is the competent authority for a former Chief Minister, nor does it decide whether the acts in question can be treated as done in the course of official duty. Those questions will arise only when the petition is heard on merits.

Restoration after dismissal for absence

Dismissal for default followed by restoration is a familiar part of writ practice. High Courts dismiss petitions when neither the petitioner nor counsel appears over several listings. Such dismissal is not a decision on merits. The petitioner may then file an application seeking recall, explaining the absence and showing that there was no wilful neglect. If the court is satisfied, it recalls the dismissal and restores the case. That is what happened here. The September 19, 2025 order had closed the file because of continuous absence. The October 27, 2026 order reopened it. The material available on the order reports no costs or conditions, and no observation on the strength of the mining-licence allegations.

Revival brings back several threshold issues that the court will have to address before any direction can be considered. The first is maintainability of a public interest litigation that repeats facts from a private complaint already dismissed by the trial court. The State and the former Chief Minister are likely to argue that the dismissal attaches finality unless set aside in accordance with law, and that a PIL cannot be used to reopen it indirectly. The petitioner is likely to argue that dismissal of the complaint for want of sanction is different from acquittal on merits, and that public interest in mineral resources justifies independent examination. The court will also have to consider delay, locus, and whether the petitioner has placed fresh material beyond what was before the trial court. None of these points has been decided.