R. Ashoka v. State of Karnataka & Ors.; 2025 INSC 1441 - CrPC - Sanction - Land Allotment - Lokayuktha
You can read our notes on this judgment in our Supreme Court Daily Digests. If you are our subscriber, you should get it in our Whatsapp CaseCiter Community at about 9pm on every working day. If you are not our subscriber yet, you can register by clicking here:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 197 ; Prevention Of Corruption Act - Section 19- Sanction - In criminal law, the requirement of obtaining sanction prior to the prosecution of a public official has been envisaged as a procedural safeguard that operates in the interest of discharging functions in furtherance of responsibility entrusted to them. It is a requirement of law, therefore, that when the allegedly improper act has been done with a reasonable nexus to such official duties, action can be initiated against such person only after a sanction has been obtained. It does not however, cover within its ambit acts which are manifestly illegal or wholly outside the public duty that is to be carried out by such person. The most prominent illustrations of such requirement are under Section 19 of PC Act and Section 197 of CrPC. (Para 16)
Land Allotment - When the State undertakes the allotment of land in favour of persons who are economically disadvantaged, such action is not an exercise in charity, but a discharge of the constitutional obligation cast upon a Welfare State. The scheme of the Constitution, particularly the Directive Principles of State Policy, envisages that the State shall strive to promote social and economic justice and secure a social order in which the material resources of the community are so distributed as to best subserve the common good. Articles 38 and 39(b) are of particular relevance in this regard. These provisions, serve as guiding beacons for all State action and inform the content of reasonableness under Part III- Accordingly, any decision relating to the allotment of land must withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 - when the Government allots land to those who are economically unfortunate, it acts within the domain of its welfare responsibilities. However, such power is circumscribed by constitutional limitations. The State must function as the guardian of the lands vested in it, ensuring that allotments serve the common good, comply with equality norms, and reflect a judicious exercise of public power. Any deviation from these principles would not only undermine the constitutional vision of distributive justice but also expose the impugned action to invalidation on the ground of arbitrariness. (Para 11)
Public trust doctrine - This doctrine imposes a fiduciary duty upon the State to manage and distribute resources in a manner consistent with the public interest and with due regard to intergenerational equity.(Para 11)
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 482 [Section 528 BNSS] - Principles of Quashing Discussed -(Para 12)
Lokayukta - Origins, Powers and Scope of Operation discussed. (Para 12)
Case Info
Case Details
- Case name: R. Ashoka v. State of Karnataka & Ors.; with C. Sandeep Sahu v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Neutral citation: 2025 INSC 1441.
- Case numbers: Criminal Appeal No. _______ of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9070 of 2018); Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 9614 of 2018).
- Coram: Sanjay Karol, J.; Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
- Judgment date: 16 December 2025.
- Disposition: FIR quashed; appeals allowed.
Caselaws and Citations
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.
- State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 3 SCC 89.
- Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 SCC 330.
- Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3831 of 2025.
- E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N., (1974) 4 SCC 3.
- Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248.
- Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCC 489.
- Chandrashekaraiah v. Janekere C. Krishna, (2013) 3 SCC 117.
- State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471.
- W.B. SEB v. Dilip Kumar Ray, (2007) 14 SCC 568.
- State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna, (2001) 2 SCC 330.
- Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab SEB, (2000) 5 SCC 630.
- Ratnagiri Gas & Power (P) Ltd. v. RDS Projects Ltd., (2013) 1 SCC 524.
- Chidananda Urs B.G v. State of Karnataka, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 1488.
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 38, 39(b), 136, 226; Directive Principles; public trust doctrine.
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Section 482; Section 197; Section 319; Sections 155(2), 156(1).
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Section 19.
- Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: Sections 7, 8, 9โ12; Second Schedule; limitation under Section 8.
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: Rule 108D (grant/regularisation framework).
- Evidence/IPC references: Section 193 IPC (judicial proceeding, via KLA Section 11(3)).
- Government Order dated 14 March 2016 (ACB: prior approval/sanction required before investigation).
- Orders abolishing ACB and transferring matters to Lokayukta (per Chidananda Urs, 11 August 2022).

Today's #SupremeCourt Judgment begins with Jawaharlal Nehru Quote: https://t.co/GqrfmmLZyw pic.twitter.com/aqWfq9SiGd
โ CiteCase ๐ฎ๐ณ (@CiteCase) December 16, 2025
When the State undertakes the allotment of land in favour of persons who are economically disadvantaged, such action is not an exercise in charity, but a discharge of the constitutional obligation cast upon a Welfare State.#SupremeCourt https://t.co/GqrfmmLZyw pic.twitter.com/LVYqPkQUgO
โ CiteCase ๐ฎ๐ณ (@CiteCase) December 16, 2025
#SupremeCourt on Public Trust Doctrine: https://t.co/GqrfmmLZyw pic.twitter.com/jrN8mho8gC
โ CiteCase ๐ฎ๐ณ (@CiteCase) December 16, 2025
#SupremeCourt on the scope of โSanction" Requirement in Criminal Law: https://t.co/GqrfmmLZyw pic.twitter.com/rF9aVzBVd4
โ CiteCase ๐ฎ๐ณ (@CiteCase) December 16, 2025