Sanction For Prosecution Of Public Servants
What is “Sanction for Prosecution”?
Sanction for prosecution refers to the official permission or approval required by law before a public servant can be prosecuted for offenses committed while performing official duties. This requirement protects public servants from frivolous or vexatious litigation and ensures that prosecutions are initiated only after preliminary scrutiny.
Legal Basis for Sanction:
Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): No court shall take cognizance of any offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duties without prior sanction of the appropriate government authority.
Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Sanction of the appropriate government or authority is required before prosecuting a public servant for corruption offenses.
Section 132(1) of the Railways Act and other specific statutes may also contain sanction provisions for officers under their domain.
Purpose of Sanction:
To protect honest public servants from false allegations.
To maintain administrative discipline and ensure accountability.
To prevent unnecessary harassment during the discharge of official duties.
Who Grants Sanction?
Usually, the Competent Authority is the Government (Central or State) depending on the rank and nature of the public servant.
Sometimes, departmental heads or administrative authorities grant sanction under delegated powers.
When is Sanction Required?
Before prosecution for criminal offenses related to official acts.
Sanction is not required for offenses committed outside official duty or non-official acts.
Case Law Analysis on Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants
Case 1: State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
Facts: The accused public servants were prosecuted without obtaining prior sanction.
Issue: Whether prosecution without sanction is valid.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that sanction is mandatory and no court can take cognizance without it. Prosecution without sanction is null and void. The Court also laid down guidelines for quashing false FIRs against public servants.
Significance: Affirmed the constitutional protection to public servants and reinforced the sanctity of sanction.
Case 2: L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 1125
Issue: Scope of sanction requirement under Section 197 IPC.
Judgment: The Court clarified that sanction is required only when the act is connected with official duty. If the offense is disconnected from official acts, sanction is unnecessary.
Significance: Distinguished between acts done in official capacity and private acts for sanction applicability.
Case 3: Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, AIR 2005 SC 3546
Facts: Sanction was delayed and prosecution proceeded in the meantime.
Judgment: The Court observed that the sanction authority must exercise discretion reasonably and expeditiously. Prolonged delay in sanction may lead to quashing of prosecution if it causes prejudice.
Significance: Imposed a duty on sanctioning authorities to act promptly.
Case 4: S.N. Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 191
Issue: Whether sanction is required for offenses unrelated to official duty.
Judgment: The Court held that sanction is not required for acts outside the scope of official functions.
Significance: Reinforced that sanction applies only to official acts.
Case 5: State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai, AIR 2003 SC 3462
Issue: Whether sanction is required for criminal prosecution of medical practitioners employed in government service.
Judgment: The Court ruled that medical officers who are public servants require sanction before prosecution only if the alleged offense relates to official duties.
Significance: Extended the principle to various categories of public servants.
Case 6: Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. B.N. Suresh, AIR 1998 SC 1202
Issue: Requirement of sanction in cases of criminal breach of trust by public servants.
Judgment: Court held sanction is a jurisdictional prerequisite; without it, prosecution is bad in law.
Significance: Emphasized jurisdictional nature of sanction.
Summary Table of Case Laws
| Case | Key Principle |
|---|---|
| State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal | Sanction mandatory; prosecution without sanction void |
| L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India | Sanction needed only for acts in official capacity |
| Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan | Sanction must be granted promptly; delay may quash case |
| S.N. Tripathi v. State of Madhya Pradesh | No sanction required for acts outside official duty |
| State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai | Sanction applies to medical officers only for official acts |
| Chennai Metropolitan Water Board v. B.N. Suresh | Sanction is jurisdictional; absence invalidates prosecution |
Additional Points:
Sanction is a condition precedent: Courts must verify sanction before proceeding.
Sanction does not guarantee conviction: It only permits prosecution.
Delay in sanction can cause quashing: Excessive delay harms fair trial rights.
Sanction is not required for departmental disciplinary action.
RELATED Blog
0 comments