Pharmacy College Officials Performing 'Public Duty' Fall Under PC Act: Kerala High Court - 2025-04-19

Kerala High Court: Management of Pharmacy Colleges Discharging 'Public Duty' Are 'Public Servants' Under Prevention of Corruption Act

Ernakulam, Kerala - In a significant judgment delivered on Thursday, December 12, 2024, the High Court of Kerala ruled that individuals managing private self-financing educational institutions, specifically pharmacy colleges, are considered 'public servants' while discharging 'public duty' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). Justice K.Babu presiding over the case of A.K.Sreekumar v. Director, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau & Ors. (WP(CRL.) NO. 791 of 2022) quashed a government order that had denied a vigilance enquiry into alleged corruption at Nazreth Pharmacy College , Kottayam.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, A.K. Sreekumar, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an order (Exhibit P5) from the Additional Chief Secretary to the Department of Vigilance, Government of Kerala, which effectively halted a preliminary inquiry into allegations of misappropriation and corruption at Nazreth Pharmacy College . Sreekumar's complaint (Exhibit P1) accused members of the charitable society managing the college of illegally selling government-allotted seats for capitation fees and misappropriating the funds. He alleged violations of the Kerala Professional Colleges or Institutions (Prohibition of Capitation Fee, Regulation of Admission, Fixation of Non-Exploitative Fee & Other Measures to Ensure Equity & Excellence in Professional Education) Act, 2006, and offences under the PC Act and the Indian Penal Code.

The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau ( VACB ) initially refused to act, citing the need for prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act. The petitioner then approached the Special Judge, who directed a report from the VACB . Subsequently, the Government, based on VACB ’s application for approval, decided against a vigilance enquiry, citing ongoing considerations by the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education.

Arguments Presented

Petitioner's Argument: Advocate Sooraj T. Elenjickal, representing the petitioner, argued that despite Nazreth Pharmacy College being managed by a registered society, its Director Board members are 'public servants' under the PC Act as they discharge 'public duty'. He contended that prior approval under Section 17A is not required as the alleged acts are not related to official recommendations or decisions but are acts of corruption.

Government's Stand: The Special Government Pleader (Vigilance) argued that the accused individuals were not 'public servants' under the PC Act and did not discharge 'public duty' as defined in the Act.

Court's Observations and Reasoning

Justice Babu delved into the definitions of 'public duty' and 'public servant' under the PC Act, referencing Hohfeldian jurisprudence to analyze 'public function' and 'public duty'. The court emphasized that "public duty" is a duty in which the State, public, or community at large has an interest (Section 2(b) PC Act) and a 'public servant' includes anyone holding an office authorized to perform public duty (Section 2(c)(viii) PC Act).

The court distinguished the present case from Karthikeya Varma v. Union of India , where office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association were deemed not to be discharging public duties as their activities were not based on any positive law or government direction. In contrast, Justice Babu highlighted that admissions and fee fixation in Nazreth Pharmacy College are governed by the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, and the Kerala Professional Colleges Act, 2006.

The judgment cited several Supreme Court precedents, including Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities and Fraud Cell v. Ramesh Gelli and Others , P.V.Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) , Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan , Modern Dental College & Research Centre v. State of Madhya Pradesh , and State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah , to reinforce the broadened scope of 'public servant' under the PC Act. The court quoted State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah emphasizing the legislative intent behind the PC Act:

> "On a perusal of Section 2(c) of the PC Act, we may observe that the emphasis is not on the position held by an individual, rather, it is on the public duty performed by him/her. In this regard, the legislative intention was not to provide an exhaustive list of authorities which are covered, rather a general definition of “public servant” is provided thereunder."

Further, referencing Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh , the court stressed the need to interpret anti-corruption laws to strengthen the fight against corruption:

> "Therefore, the duty of the court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."

Justice Babu concluded that because the management of Nazreth Pharmacy College is the final authority for admissions and fee collection, and this duty is regulated by state law, they are indeed discharging 'public duty' and thus fall under the definition of 'public servant' under the PC Act. The court also clarified that Section 17A approval was not required as the allegations did not relate to decisions taken in discharge of official functions.

Final Decision and Implications

The High Court quashed Exhibit P5 order, directing Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau) to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations made by the petitioner and proceed according to law.

This judgment broadens the ambit of the PC Act in Kerala, clarifying that individuals managing private self-financing educational institutions are accountable as 'public servants' when performing duties related to admissions and fees, which are considered 'public duties' due to state regulation and public interest in education. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for accountability and transparency in the management of private educational institutions in the state.