The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea by three Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislators seeking prosecution of Karnataka Energy minister KJ George over alleged irregularities in the allocation of a ₹ 4,985-crore smart electricity meter tender, upholding a Karnataka high court order that had quashed the case.
The allegations pertained to 2024, when the petitioners, who are members of the Karnataka legislative assembly, alleged that the energy minister, who is also the chairman of Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (BESCOM), acted in collusion with BESCOM officials to manipulate financial thresholds and circumvent statutory safeguards to award a tender for smart electricity meters to M/s Rajashree Electricals Pvt Ltd. “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and having gone through the materials on record, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the high court. The Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed,” the order, passed on Friday and uploaded on Saturday, said.
Against this order, George and other accused approached the high court seeking quashing of the case. The high court further held the entire tender process to be transparent, with participation from multiple bidders and, more significantly, no allegation of any bribe being paid as quid pro quo. By quashing the complaint at such a nascent stage, the high court foreclosed the possibility of any investigation into serious allegations involving public officials and a high-value public contract, causing grave miscarriage of justice, they added.
In July 2025, the trial judge sought a report from the Lokayukta. The high court order of December 2, 2025, said that the allegations did not disclose any criminality and at best gave rise to a civil dispute.
The appeal filed by the three BJP MLAs in the top court said that the complaint pertained to large-scale irregularities, illegality and criminal misconduct in the formulation and execution of a smart meter tender, which could not be dismissed at the threshold without ordering an investigation.
The petitioners initially approached the Lokayukta, which refused to direct an investigation, before filing a case before the trial court.
