Back
Raps Rajasthan Government For Influencing Prosecution Sanctions Under Political Pressure And Coercion
In a scathing rebuke, the of India has criticized the for bowing to "political dictation" when pursuing a criminal case against a government doctor. The Bench, comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, affirmed that the decision-making process for granting under , must remain free from external influence.
A Case Born of Controversy
The dispute traces back to a bribery allegation against a physician. Initially, the , thoroughly reviewed the case and found no merit in prosecuting the official. Officials noted significant , including the questionable "trap" and the lack of a clear bribe demand. However, the matter was later revived under pressure from the , despite no new evidence being introduced to justify a change in stance.
The Legal Battle Against Procedural Abuse
The Apex Court relied on established precedents to emphasize that once a sanctioning authority has applied its mind and declined to prosecute, a review is not permissible unless fresh, compelling material supports such a decision. The Court referenced the case, underscoring that the power to grant is meant to shield innocent public servants from "," not to serve as a weapon for political vendettas.
Key Observations from the Bench
Highlighting the gravity of the State's conduct, the
stated:
*
"The decision-making process under
cannot resemble the dilemma in ‘Hamlet’s Soliloquy’: ‘to be or not to be’."
*
"If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that
weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed."
*
"The State at least should have rested content, when the highest Constitutional Court within its boundaries, interfered with a patently illegal and blatantly tainted order of
."
A Firm Message to the State
Finding the review process to be devoid of legal basis and motivated by extraneous pressures, the Court dismissed the filed by the State. Beyond the dismissal, the judiciary imposed an exemplary cost of ₹50,000 on the , payable both before the and the . This ruling serves as a stark reminder that cannot be utilized to facilitate the harassment of government officials, reinforcing the integrity of statutory protection mechanisms meant to ensure fair oversight in criminal proceedings.
