Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(SC) 1025

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Vijay Rajmohan - Appellant
Versus
State Represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1746 of 2022 Arising Out of SLP (CRL) No. 1568 of 2022
Decided On : 11-10-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Mugdha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Y. Lokesh, Adv. Mr. V. Sibi Kargil, Adv. Mr. V. Kandhan Prabhu, Adv. Mr. Arun Singh, Adv. Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Surya Narayan Patro, Adv. Mr. L.R. Venkatesan, Adv. Mr. C. Thangaraja, Adv. Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Adv. Ms. Maitri Goal, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Chowdhary, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Statutory scheme under which appointing authority could call for, seek and consider advice of CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration.
(2) Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory – As power to grant sanction for prosecution has legal consequences, it must be exercised within a reasonable period.
(3) Administrative Law – Principle of accountability is considered as a cornerstone of human rights framework – It is a crucial feature that must govern relationship between “duty bearers” in authority and “right holders” affected by their actions.

Headnote:
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – If sanctioning authority is under obligation or compulsion to grant sanction, order will be bad for reason that discretion is taken away – Sanction for prosecution of an employee of Union under PC Act would involve invocation of specific provisions of Cr.P.C., Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, PC Act and CVC Act, all of which constitute a unified scheme – Five legislations being Cr.P.C, DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal Act, must be read together to enable authorities to sub-serve common purpose and objectives underlying these legislations – Statutory scheme under which appointing authority could call for, seek and consider advice of CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration – Opinion of CVC is only advisory – There is no illegality in action of appointing authority, DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers opinion of Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. (Paras 16, 17 and 18)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 197 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Delay in issuance of sanction order – Grant of sanction being an exercise of executive power, it is subject to standard principles of judicial review – As power to grant sanction for prosecution has legal consequences, it must be exercised within a reasonable period – New proviso to Section 19 mandating that competent authority shall endeavour to convey decision on proposal for sanction within a period of three months can only be read and understood as a compelling statutory obligation – Sanctioning authority must bear in mind that public confidence in maintenance of Rule of Law, which is fundamental in administration of justice, is at stake here – By causing delay in considering request for sanction, sanctioning authority stultifies judicial scrutiny, thereby vitiating process of determination of allegations against corrupt official – Delays in prosecuting corrupt breeds a culture of impunity and leads to systemic resignation to existence of corruption in public life – Such inaction is fraught with risk of making future generations getting accustomed to corruption as a way of life – Duty to take early decision inheres in power vested in appointing authority to grant or not to grant sanction. (Paras 22, 27 and 28)
(C) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Sanction for prosecution of public servant – Delay in issuance of sanction order – Period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory – If it is mandatory for sanctioning authority to decide in a time-bound manner, consequence of non-compliance with mandatory period must be examined – Non-compliance with a mandatory period cannot and should not automatically lead to quashing of criminal proceedings because prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an element of public interest having a direct bearing on rule of law – There must be a consequence of dereliction of duty to giving sanction within time specified – Way forward is to make appointing authority accountable for delay in grant of sanction. (Paras 30, 31, 32 and 38)
(D) Administrative Law – Accountability – Accountability in itself is an essential principle of administrative law. Judicial review of administrative action will be effective and meaningful by ensuring accountability of the officer or authority in charge – Principle of accountability is considered as a cornerstone of human rights framework – It is a crucial feature that must govern relationship between “duty bearers” in authority and “right holders” affected by their actions – Accountability has three essential constituent dimensions. (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability and (iii) enforceability – Accountability has a corrective function, making it possible to address individual or collective grievances – It enables action against officials or institutions for dereliction of duty – It also has a preventive function that helps to identify procedure or policy which has become non-functional and to improve upon it. (Paras 33, 34 and 35)
Facts of the case:
Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults Central Vigilance Commission for its decision. The second question is whether the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation [As per 2018 Amendment through 2nd Proviso to Section 19(1) of PC Act]) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not. The further question in this context, is whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within mandatory period.
Findings of Court:
CBI made application for sanction for prosecution on 08.09.2015, and same was granted on 24.07.2017, i.e., after one year and ten months. As Appellant did not question the legality of the delay either before the Trial or High Court but chose to confine the challenge only to the appointing authority acting under dictation of the CVC, there was no occasion for CBI to respond to the submission of delay.
Result : Criminal Appeal dismissed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:

Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants:
The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority consults the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for advice does not amount to acting under dictation nor is it an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC remains advisory, and the final decision must be made independently by the appointing authority after considering the advice (!) (!) .
Application of Independent Mind:
The validity of the sanction depends on whether the appointing authority applied its own independent mind to the material and advice received. Mere reliance on the advice of the CVC, in itself, does not invalidate the sanction if the final decision is an independent exercise of power (!) (!) .
Timeliness of Sanction:
The period of three months (extended by one month for legal consultation) for deciding on a request for sanction is mandatory. The authority must decide within this period, and failure to do so can lead to the sanction being deemed granted, but it does not automatically invalidate ongoing proceedings (!) (!) (!) .
Consequences of Delay:
Delay beyond the prescribed period should not automatically result in the quashing of criminal proceedings. However, the delay undermines public confidence, impedes judicial scrutiny, and can be subject to accountability measures. The delay calls for the appointing authority to be accountable, and remedies may be sought through judicial or administrative review (!) (!) (!) .
Accountability and Administrative Principles:
Accountability involves responsibility, answerability, and enforceability. The appointing authority is responsible for timely decision-making, and failure to act within the mandated period can be challenged. Administrative law principles support judicial review to enforce accountability (!) (!) (!) .
Legal Framework and Amendments:
The legislative amendments emphasize the importance of expeditious decision-making. The process of granting sanction is integral to ensuring rule of law and preventing systemic corruption. The law prescribes that the decision should ideally be made within four months, including extensions, with non-compliance being subject to scrutiny but not automatically invalidating proceedings (!) (!) .
Remedies and Redress:
If the sanction is delayed beyond the stipulated period, affected parties, including the accused or victims, have the right to approach courts for appropriate remedies. The CVC also has a role in reviewing delays and taking corrective actions (!) (!) .
Judicial Approach to Delay and Sanction Validity:
The courts recognize that delays in granting sanction can impact the integrity of prosecution but do not necessarily warrant automatic quashing of proceedings. The focus is on ensuring accountability and adherence to procedural timelines, with the possibility of deeming sanction granted if delays occur (!) (!) (!) .
Protection of Good Faith Actions:
Statutory protections are provided to officers acting in good faith while exercising statutory duties. These protections aim to prevent harassment and ensure that officers can perform their functions without undue fear, but they do not grant immunity from accountability for delays or procedural lapses (!) (!) .
Overall Principle:
- The process of granting sanction must be transparent, timely, and independent. The legal regime emphasizes accountability, rule of law, and the importance of timely decision-making to maintain public trust and integrity in governance and prosecution processes (!) (!) (!) .

Would you like a more detailed analysis of any specific aspect?

JUDGMENT :

Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. Two important questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal. The first question is whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988¹[hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’.], would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision. The second question is whether the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation²[As per the 2018 Amendment through the 2nd Proviso to Section 19(1) of the PC Act.]) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not. The further question in this context, is whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within the mandatory period.

Facts leading to the filing of this Appeal

3. The Appellant challenges the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras³[Criminal Revision Petition No. 349 of 2019 dated 06.01.2022] allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the State against an order of the Trial Court⁴[Criminal Misc. Petition No. 3908 of 2018 in C.C. No. 3 of 2018 dated 13.12.2018], discharging the Appellant on the ground that the order of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, is vitiated due to non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

4. The Appellant is an official of the Central Secretarial Service, Government of India. During the period between 01.01.2005 to 31.10.2012, when his official postings were in New Delhi and Bangalore, he is alleged to have acquired assets that were disproportionate to his known sources of income. As of 31.12.2012, he and his relatives were found to be in possession of disproportionate assets to the tune of Rs. 79,17,593/-. An FIR came to be registered on 20.11.2012 by the Central Bureau of Investigation⁵[hereinafter referred to as ‘the CBI’] against the Appellant, his father, and his mother under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860⁶[hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’], read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the PC Act.

5. On 08.09.2015, the CBI completed investigation and sought sanction from the appointing authority, the Department of Personnel and Training⁷[hereinafter referred to as ‘the DoPT’], for prosecuting the Appellant. As the questions arising for consideration relate to the manner and the time taken for granting sanction for prosecution, the relevant facts will have to be mentioned in detail. They are as follows.

6. About two months after receiving the proposal for sanction, on 26.11.2015, the DoPT examined the facts of the case and sought 23 clarifications from the CBI. A month after that, i.e., on 15.12.2015, the CBI gave clarifications on the same questions. Upon reviewing the clarifications, the DoPT believed that there were many errors in the investigation conducted by the CBI, and therefore sought the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission⁸[hereinafter referred to as ‘the CVC’] on 07.01.2016.

7. CVC followed it up and sought clarification from CBI on 18.03.2016, i.e., two and a half months after the opinion of the CVC. After examining the clarifications tendered by the CBI, the CVC believed that this to be a strong case for grant of sanction subject to the CBI conducting a re-investigation on certain aspects of the case. This opinion was communicated to the DoPT on 01.06.2016.

8. Since the communication dated 01.06.2016 was unclear, the DoPT vide letter dated 26.08.2016 sought to know whether the CVC recommended the grant of sanction or whether the CVC had advised the CBI to re-investigate. A month later, on 20.09.2016, CVC clarified to the DoPT that the CBI should re-investigate the matter and come up with its revised findings. Accordingly, the DoPT informed CVC on 05.10.2016 that it will treat the proposal for sanction for prosecution of the Appellant as closed until the rei