Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution

“The custodian of power is influenced by considerations outside the purpose of which power is vested — the Court calls it a colourable exercise and is undeceived by illusion.” — Supreme Court holds FIR against R. Ashoka an abuse of process

In a scathing indictment of abuse of criminal law for political ends, the Supreme Court of India on 16th December 2025, quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings initiated against R. Ashoka, senior BJP leader and former Karnataka minister, in a case alleging illegal land allotments to ineligible persons. Declaring the entire action as a “fraud on power” and a “politically motivated misuse of process,” the Court invoked constitutional protections and emphasized that “absence of prior sanction vitiates the entire criminal process.”

The ruling came in R. Ashoka v. State of Karnataka, where the Court found that not only were the allegations against the appellant repetitious and previously closed by the Lokayukta, but the FIR was also lodged without mandatory government sanction — a fatal flaw that rendered the entire investigation illegal from its inception.

“Fraud in this context is not equal to moral turpitude — it embraces all cases where the action impugned is to effect some object beyond the purpose and intent of power” — Supreme Court draws sharp lines on mala fide prosecutions

Delivering the verdict, a Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi referred to well-established constitutional principles governing executive accountability, discretionary power, and procedural safeguards. “The State cannot act capriciously or with extraneous considerations while allotting public land,” the Court declared, reiterating that when dealing with public property, “fairness, transparency, and rationality are constitutional imperatives.”

The judgment began by recognizing that allotment of land to the underprivileged is not a matter of grace but of constitutional obligation. Citing Articles 38 and 39(b), the Court observed that land being a scarce and vital resource must be distributed with equity and in accordance with law. “The State holds land not as a private proprietor, but as a trustee of the people,” the Court stated, stressing that any deviation from this fiduciary principle would attract scrutiny under Article 14.

“All three complaints were by political rivals — timing, delay and recycled allegations establish a colourable exercise of criminal law” — SC reads mala fides into the FIR process

The FIR registered by the Karnataka Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) in January 2018 was found to be a direct violation of a 2016 Government Order, which clearly mandated that no investigation can be initiated against a public servant without prior sanction from the recruitment authority. The Court categorically held that “since no sanction was obtained, the entire preliminary inquiry, FIR and subsequent proceedings are vitiated and illegal.”

Referring to its own landmark ruling in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court said this case squarely falls within the category of FIRs that deserve to be quashed: “Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any provision of the law, the court is justified in quashing the criminal proceedings.”

Adding to this, the Court remarked that the filing of three successive complaints, all from political rivals, over the same set of facts—despite previous closure by the Lokayukta—established clear mala fides. “Legal malice is not just a moral vice,” the Court emphasized, “it is the attainment of ends beyond the sanctioned purposes of power, under pretence of legality.”

Highlighting the long silence between 2007 and 2012, the Court questioned the motive of the complainants: “Why did the complainant maintain silence from 2014 to 2017? And why file another complaint on the eve of elections?”

The Court did not stop at procedural flaws. It examined the political context, delay, and lack of fresh material. Noting that the complainants had links to rival political parties, the Court held that “the actions against the appellant ex facie appear to be politically motivated and afflicted by malice.”

The Bench added, “It is not lost on us that Mr. Anand, the complainant in the third FIR, was also a signatory to the second complaint filed on the letterhead of the youth wing of a political rival. This shows a concerted effort to misuse criminal process and assassinate the character of a political leader.”

“No investigation could have begun without prior sanction — yet it did” — SC finds FIR unsustainable from inception

The Court found that the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which registered the FIR, was already held unconstitutional in Chidananda Urs B.G. v. State of Karnataka by the Karnataka High Court in 2022. All pending inquiries before the ACB were ordered to be transferred to the Lokayukta, which had already twice exonerated Ashoka in detailed reports.

The Court held that "Ordinarily, with the case having been re-transferred to the Lokayukta, the stand exonerating the appellant would have been the end of the matter. But since the FIR was already registered, the application for quashing had to be considered."

Reiterating that sanction is not a procedural formality but a jurisdictional prerequisite, the Court held:

“It is a requirement of law that when the allegedly improper act has been done with a reasonable nexus to official duties, action can be initiated only after sanction is obtained. Since no such sanction was ever secured, the FIR and all proceedings stand vitiated.”

"Allotments had judicial recognition — FIR cannot override lawful administrative decisions"

The Court also noted that some of the allotments alleged to be illegal had in fact been affirmed in judicial or administrative proceedings, and hence could not be reopened via criminal complaint. “The correctness of those allotments is not under challenge here, and those decisions must be respected,” the Court said.

Quashing is Warranted Where Proceedings Are Vitiated by Political Malice and Legal Bar

The Supreme Court concluded that three factors warranted quashing of the FIR:

1. Absence of mandatory sanction
2. Existence of political malice
3. Prior administrative and judicial confirmation of land allotments

Quoting from Bhajan Lal and State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, the Bench ruled that “exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC is justified where criminal law is being used for ulterior purposes, or where proceedings are without jurisdiction.”

The judgment closed with a warning: “The criminal justice system is not a battlefield for political revenge. It is the guardian of due process and constitutional liberty.”

Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed both criminal appeals and quashed the FIR and all proceedings against both R. Ashoka and co-accused C. Sandeep Sahu.

Date of Decision: 16th December 2025