Kerala High Court Seeks Centre's Reply on Deemed Sanction Under Prevention of Corruption Act

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the Union Government and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), among others, seeking their response to a public interest litigation (PIL) that demands binding guidelines and the application of "deemed sanction" to prosecute corrupt public officials without inordinate delays. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., granted the respondents two weeks to file their affidavits, adjourning the matter to August 19, 2026.

A Question of Timely Justice

At the heart of the petition, filed by C.T. Muneer, is the alleged failure of sanctioning authorities to decide on prosecution proposals within the mandated period. The petitioner argues that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, requires the competent authority to "endeavour" to convey its decision within three months of receiving a proposal. Crucially, the petitioner contends that if this period lapses without a decision, it should be treated as a "deemed sanction," a concept explicitly recognized in Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. This, they argue, is also the import of the Supreme Court's directives in Vineet Narain v. Union of India and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal .

The petition highlights three specific cases to illustrate the human and systemic cost of delay. In the alleged Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) scam (2013-2015), involving the sale of public property at below-market rates, sanction was granted only in 2025. Such delay, the plea warns, risks fading witness memories, losing evidence, and undermining the trial itself. Even more stark is the Palarivattom Flyover Scam, where the Vigilance Department completed its investigation in December 2022 but has been unable to file a charge sheet due to the pendency of sanction. The case involves two IAS officers, necessitating Central Government approval, and one of the accused—a former PWD Minister—has since passed away. The petition also references the Cashew Corp Corruption case, where sanction was granted only after repeated High Court interventions.

The Demand for Clear Rules

The petitioner's core argument is that the Central Government has a statutory duty, under Section 29A of the PC Act, to frame rules for grant of sanction, and has failed to do so. While the Central Vigilance Commission has issued circulars on the subject, the petitioner argues these lack the force of binding guidelines. The PIL also points to a recent State circular dated December 16, 2025, which outlines procedural steps for sanction under Section 218(1) of the BNSS, and seeks a direction for its strict adherence.

The reliefs sought are direct: a direction to the Union and the Ministry of Home Affairs to prescribe guidelines under Section 19; a direction to the State and Vigilance Department to adhere to the State's circular; and a direction to the authorities to strictly enforce the three-month time limit and treat its lapse as deemed sanction. As an interim measure, the petitioner seeks a direction for the respondents to furnish the total number of pending sanction requests that have exceeded the three-month period.

Awaiting the Centre's Response

The court's order is brief, noting the appearance of counsel for all parties and directing the respondents to file affidavits within two weeks. The matter now stands adjourned to August 19, 2026, for further consideration. The outcome of this PIL could have significant implications for the pace of corruption prosecutions, potentially clarifying the legal fiction of "deemed sanction" and compelling a more disciplined approach to a process that is often seen as a tool for delay.