The Karnataka High Court has told the state government to give permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act so that Lokayukta police can file an FIR against IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri over corruption allegations that reportedly caused losses to the government.
The order was passed by Justice M Nagaprasana on March 27, after a petition filed by activist NR Ravichandre Gowda. He had complained to the Anti-Corruption Bureau, alleging that Sindhuri approved the purchase of over 14 lakh eco-friendly cloth bags at Rs 52 each, even though the market price was around Rs 13 per bag.
Who Is Rohini Sindhuri?
Rohini Sindhuri is a senior Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officer of the 2009 batch from the Karnataka cadre. She is currently serving as the Secretary for the Animal Husbandry, Veterinary & Fisheries Department in Bengaluru.
This is not the first time she has been stuck in a dispute. In 2023, she was involved in a highly publicised feud with IPS officer D. Roopa, who accused her of administrative misconduct and sharing private photos with other officers.
What is Rohini Sindhuri’s Corruption Case?
The case involved the purchase that happened when IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri was working as Mysuru Deputy Commissioner and also Managing Director of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation. This came after her earlier decision in 2021 to ban plastic bags and promote eco-friendly options. But this deal reportedly caused a loss of around Rs 5,88 crore to the state government.
Even after the complaint no proper investigation was startd. This is because the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR) had refused to give approval under Section 17A on May 26, 2025, after doing a departmental inquiry.
Why Did Court Order FIR Against Rohini Sindhuri?
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act says that before starting any inquiry or investigation against a government officer for work done in official duty, permission from the government is needed.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said this rule is there to stop unnecessary harassment, not to avoid accountability. He also said the complaint clearly shows, with proper documents, that there may be misuse of power and financial loss to the government.
The court also said that once corruption allegations come up, they cannot be ignored so easily. Section 17A should not be used to block serious investigations, it is only meant to stop false complaints.
The judge added that a criminal case and a departmental inquiry are two different things, and both should be treated separately.
According to LiveLaw, “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,” the court said.
The court also criticised the government for not properly reviewing the matter and said sending it back again will not help.
Manisha Chauhan is a passionate journalist with 3 years of experience in the media industry, covering everything from trending entertainment buzz and celebrity spotlights to thought-provoking book reviews and practical health tips. Known for blending fresh perspectives with reader-friendly writing, she creates content that informs, entertains, and inspires. When she’s not chasing the next viral story, you’ll find her diving into a good book or exploring new wellness trends.
