Criminal Liability Of Public Servants
I. Introduction
Public servants in India are expected to act in the public interest with honesty, integrity, and accountability. However, when they commit criminal acts or abuse their official positions, they can be held criminally liable under various laws.
The primary laws governing the criminal liability of public servants include:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018)
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
II. Key Provisions
1. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 21 IPC: Defines “Public Servant”
Sections 166 to 168 IPC: Penalizes public servants who disobey the law with intent to cause injury.
Section 218 IPC: Public servant framing incorrect records.
Section 409 IPC: Criminal breach of trust by public servant.
Section 120B IPC: Criminal conspiracy involving public servants.
2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
Amended in 2018, this is the principal legislation dealing with corruption by public servants.
Key sections:
Section 7: Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration.
Section 13: Criminal misconduct by a public servant.
Section 19: Previous sanction is required to prosecute a public servant.
III. Essentials for Criminal Liability
Existence of Duty: There must be a legal duty violated by the public servant.
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): Criminal intent must be proven, especially in corruption cases.
Actus Reus (Guilty Act): The commission of the wrongful act.
Sanction for Prosecution: Generally required before prosecuting a public servant for acts done in the course of duty.
IV. Detailed Case Laws (More than 5)
1. State of Maharashtra v. R.B. Chowdhari (AIR 1968 SC 110)
Facts: R.B. Chowdhari, a public servant, was prosecuted without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Held: The Supreme Court held that sanction is necessary when the act alleged is in discharge of official duty. However, if the act has no reasonable connection with official duty, then sanction is not required.
Principle: Protection under Section 197 CrPC applies only when the act has a nexus with official duties.
2. P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) (1998) 4 SCC 626
Facts: The case involved allegations of bribery against former Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao in the JMM bribery case.
Held: The Court held that public servants, including Members of Parliament, are not immune from criminal prosecution for bribery.
Principle: Public servants are not above the law and can be prosecuted for offenses involving corruption, including bribery, under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Prakash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab (2007) 1 SCC 1
Facts: Former Chief Minister Prakash Singh Badal was charged under the Prevention of Corruption Act for amassing disproportionate assets.
Held: The Supreme Court clarified that the motive or intention behind accumulation of wealth is not necessary to prove. Possession of assets disproportionate to known sources of income is sufficient.
Principle: In corruption cases, the burden shifts to the accused to explain how disproportionate assets were legally acquired.
4. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 64
Facts: Dr. Swamy sought prosecution sanction against then Telecom Minister A. Raja in the 2G scam case. He alleged delay by the Prime Minister's Office.
Held: Supreme Court held that the competent authority must decide sanction requests within 3 months, and delays can result in assumed permission.
Principle: Sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be given or refused expeditiously. Delay cannot be used as a shield by public servants.
5. Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014) 9 SCC 1
Facts: The petitioner challenged the appointment of ministers with criminal backgrounds.
Held: Supreme Court emphasized the importance of constitutional morality and said that though the law does not bar such appointments, it is morally improper to appoint tainted individuals.
Principle: While not strictly about criminal liability, this case emphasized the moral responsibility of public servants and the executive's duty to uphold public trust.
6. C.S. Karnan v. Union of India (2017) 7 SCC 1
Facts: Justice Karnan, a sitting High Court judge, passed orders against fellow judges and was later held guilty of contempt by the Supreme Court.
Held: The Court ruled that no one, including judges, is immune from criminal proceedings if their actions amount to contempt or criminal misconduct.
Principle: Even high-ranking public functionaries can face criminal consequences for acts done in personal capacity or misusing official position.
7. Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal v. State of Maharashtra (2013) 4 SCC 642
Facts: Public servants were caught accepting bribes.
Held: Supreme Court reiterated that corruption is an enemy of the nation, and public servants must be dealt with sternly.
Principle: The judiciary has a duty to uphold probity in public life, and public servants indulging in corruption deserve no leniency.
V. Important Observations by the Judiciary
Corruption undermines constitutional values (Badal case, Niranjan case).
The need for expedited sanction decisions (Swamy case).
Public office is a public trust, not a position for personal gain.
Sanction is a shield, not a sword—it should not protect criminality.
VI. Sanction for Prosecution (Section 197 CrPC & Section 19 PCA)
A key procedural safeguard for public servants, sanction for prosecution is meant to protect honest officers from harassment. However:
It does not apply if the act has no connection with official duty.
Delay or mala fide refusal to grant sanction can be challenged in court.
VII. Conclusion
Public servants are entrusted with powers to serve the public, not exploit the position for personal gain. The criminal liability of public servants is governed by a robust legal framework that balances protection for honest action and punishment for criminal misconduct.
The judiciary has consistently held that no public servant is above the law, and even high offices cannot shield illegal acts. Accountability, transparency, and swift legal action are necessary to uphold integrity in public life.
RELATED Blog
0 comments