Skip to main content
politics

Smart Meter Case... High Court Says Only Procedural Lapse, Not Corruption!

By Bhavana Gowda
Smart Meter Case... High Court Says Only Procedural Lapse, Not Corruption!

The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant verdict in the smart meter installation tender case. The court stated that only some procedural lapses were found, and that corruption or theft has not been proven.

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday orally observed that the complaint by BJP leaders regarding alleged irregularities in the smart meter purchase and installation tender only points to a procedural lapse. A single-judge bench of Justice M.I. Arun, hearing a petition filed by Energy Minister K.J. George and others, made this statement. George had appealed to quash the trial court's order directing Lokayukta police to submit a report regarding the smart meter installation case.

After hearing the arguments of senior advocate C.V. Nagesh on behalf of the petitioners, the bench questioned, "You can only ask for the entire process to be conducted anew. What else can be asked for? There is only a procedural lapse here. But you have asked for the entire process to be set aside."

Previously, Nagesh had argued that the complainant had asked the court to exercise its power under B.N.S.S. Section 175(4) to order a Lokayukta investigation, but had not requested cognizance. He also argued that public servants are protected under B.N.S.S. Section 218 and Prevention of Corruption Act Section 17A.

Nagesh explained that if the complainant has objections regarding the alleged irregularities by a public servant like George, the court must obtain a report from the competent authority. The complainant knows who George's competent authority is. They have also described in their objection that a request was submitted to the Governor. If George made the decision as a minister, Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies, but prior permission from the Governor is required for George's prosecution.

Another senior advocate, Vikram Huilagol, argued that the sections invoked do not align with the allegations against the petitioners and that the case was filed with political malice. After hearing the arguments, the bench extended the interim order and adjourned the hearing to August 23.