1. Prosecution sanction for a Chief Minister under Section 197 Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 19 Prevention of Corruption Act. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Faizan Uddin, S. B. Majmudar, S. P. Bharucha
J. JAYALALITHA, PETITIONER/APPELLANT
Versus
M. CHENNA REDDY AND OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 5605 and 5606 of 1995,
decided on February 13, 1996.
Important Points
The constitutional importance of the issue regarding the appropriate authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of the Chief Minister under specific provisions necessitated a referral to a Constitution Bench.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Sanction for Prosecution
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitutional Importance - Sanction for Prosecution - Governor's Authority
Fact of the Case:
The issue of constitutional importance regarding the appropriate authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of the Chief Minister under specific provisions was raised.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issue raised was of constitutional importance and should be heard by a Bench of 5 learned Judges.
Issues: The main issue was whether the Governor of the State was the appropriate authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of the Chief Minister under specific provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided to refer the matters to a Constitution Bench due to the constitutional importance of the issue, emphasizing the urgency of the matter as the Chief Minister continued to remain in office.
Final Decision: The papers were to be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions, and parties were at liberty to mention the matter to Honble the Chief Justice. All applications for intervention in these matters were to be considered by the Constitution Bench.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the Governor is the appropriate sanctioning authority and whether such sanction requires the advice of the Council of Ministers. (Para 2 )
3. The matter involves an issue of constitutional importance requiring determination by a five-judge Constitution Bench. (Para 1 , 4 )
4. Issues of constitutional importance are to be heard by a Bench of five judges. (Para 1 )
5. Matter referred to a Constitution Bench for determination of the constitutional issue. (Para 1 , 5 )
6. Under what circumstances is a matter referred to a Constitution Bench?
A matter is referred to a Constitution Bench when the court determines that an issue of constitutional importance has been raised. (Para 1 )
ORDER
1. Having heard learned counsel, we are of the view that an issue of constitutional importance is raised in these matters and they should be heard by a Bench of 5 learned Judges.
2. Shortly put, the submission on behalf of the Chief Minister of the State of Tamil Nadu and the State of Tamil Nadu is that the Governor of the State was not the appropriate authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of the Chief Minister under the provisions of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that, assuming that he was, he was not entitled to decide whether or not to grant sanction only upon the basis of his discretion : he could do so only upon the advice of the Council of Ministers other than the Chief Minister.
3. A decision is sought upon this issue also by the States other than the State of Tamil Nadu.
4. While we think that it is appropriate to refer the matters to a Constitution Bench, we should point out that no delay can be brooked for the Chief Minister continues to remain in office, no prosecution having been launched against her by reason of the stay order of this Court.
5. The papers shall be placed before the Honble the Chief Justice for appropriate directions.
6. Parties shall be at liberty to mention the matter to Honble the Chief Justice.
7. All applications for intervention in these matters may be considered by the Constitution Bench.
Court Masters
