The Supreme Court on Monday, April 13, stayed the Karnataka High Court’s order directing the state government to grant approval for an investigation into IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri. The probe pertains to an alleged “cloth bag” scam in 2021 during her tenure as Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma issued the interim stay on a plea filed by Sindhuri through her senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal. Her plea strongly criticised the High Court’s direction to the state government to authorise an FIR against her. The case stems from alleged irregularities in the procurement of eco-friendly bags meant for distribution across the Mysuru City Corporation and other local administrative bodies. The court has also issued notices to the state government and the original complainant, advocate N R Ravichandre Gowda.
The March 27, 2026 High Court directive, issued by Justice M Nagaprasanna, followed a petition filed by activist N R Ravichandre Gowda. The petition stated that Sindhuri had directed urban, rural, and local bodies in Mysuru to create a plastic-free environment by using cloth bags instead of plastic ones. As part of this initiative, she allegedly procured eco-friendly bags at Rs 52 per bag, while similar bags were available in the retail market for Rs 13. This allegedly resulted in a loss of Rs 5,88,58,320 to the exchequer. It has also been alleged that funds earmarked for welfare schemes of gram panchayats were used for the purchase.
The officer had earlier, in 2021, imposed a ban on plastic bags and initiated the distribution of eco-friendly cloth bags to Mysuru residents during her tenure as the city’s Commissioner.
Gowda had earlier approached the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Mysuru, seeking to register a case under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, this was rejected, prompting him to challenge the decision in the High Court.
The High Court observed that Section 17A is meant to “prevent frivolous harassment” and “not to block accountability”. In his order, Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “If such material does not even warrant the grant of approval to initiate investigation under Section 17A (Prevention of Corruption Act), this court is constrained to ponder what would.”