Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 305 OF 2007
Manzoor Ali Khan ... Petitioner (s)
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondent
(s)
J U D G E M E N T
Ad!"# $%&! G'()* J.
1. This petition !" #a" of pu!li$ interest liti%ation see&s
dire$tion to de$lare 'e$tion 1( of the Pre)ention of *orruption
A$t 1(++ (,P* A$t-) un$onstitutional and to dire$t prose$ution
of all $ases re%istered and in)esti%ated under the pro)isions of
P* A$t a%ainst the politi$ians M...As M.Ps and /o)ern0ent
offi$ials #ithout san$tion as re1uired under 'e$tion 1( of the
P* A$t.
2. A$$ordin% to the a)er0ents in the #rit petition the
petitioner is a pra$tisin% ad)o$ate in the 'tate of 3a00u &
1
Page 2
Kash0ir. In the said 'tate se)eral /o)ern0ent offi$ials ha)e
!een $har%ed for $orruption !ut in the a!sen$e of re1uisite
san$tion the" $ould not !e prose$uted. Referrin% to se)eral
instan$es in$ludin% those noti$ed !" this *ourt in )arious
orders it is su!0itted that the pro)ision for san$tion as a
$ondition pre$edent for prose$ution is !ein% used !" the
/o)ern0ent of India and the 'tate /o)ern0ents to prote$t
dishonest and $orrupt politi$ians and /o)ern0ent offi$ials. The
dis$retion to %rant san$tion has !een 0isused.
4. The petition refers to )arious orders of this *ourt #here
in$u0!ents #ere indi$ted !ut not prose$uted for #ant of
san$tion. In Common Cause, a registered Society )s.
Union of India & Ors. (1((5) 5 '** 6(4 *aptain 'atish
'har0a the then Minister for Petroleu0 and 7atural /as #as
held to ha)e a$ted in ar!itrar" 0anner in allottin% petrol pu0ps
!ut sin$e san$tion #as refused he $ould not !e prose$uted. In
Shiv Sagar Tiwari )s. Union of India & Ors. (1((5) 5 '**
6(( '0t. 'hiela Kaul the then Minister for 8ousin% and Ur!an
9e)elop0ent /o)ern0ent of India #as indi$ted for 0a&in%
ar!itrar" mala fide and un$onstitutional allot0ents !ut still she
$ould not !e prose$uted. In M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam)
2
Page 3
)s. Union of India & Ors. (2::;) 1 '** 11: Ms. Ma"a#ati
the then *hief Minister of U.P. and 'hri 7asi0uddin 'iddi1ui the
then Minister for <n)iron0ent U.P. #ere indi$ted and
alle%ations a%ainst the0 #ere noti$ed !ut the" $ould not !e
prose$uted in the a!sen$e of san$tion. It is further stated that
in ra!ash Singh "ada# & $nr. )s. State of unja% & Ors.
2::; (1) '** 1 &a#u rasad ' &a#u rasad (adav )s. State
of "ihar Thr. C"I)$*+) atna 2::; (1) '** =( and ,.
,aruna!aran )s. State of ,era#a 2::; (1) '** 6( )alidit" of
re1uire0ent of san$tion #as not %one into on the %round of
a!sen$e of $hallen%e to its )alidit". In Shivajirao -i#ange!ar
ati# )s. Mahesh Madhav .osavi )+r.) & Ors. (1(+;) 1 '**
22; this *ourt noti$ed that there #as a stead" de$line of pu!li$
standards and 0orals. It #as ne$essar" to $leanse pu!li$ life
e)en !efore $leanin% the ph"si$al at0osphere. The pro)ision
for san$tion under the P* A$t $onfers un%uided and ar!itrar"
dis$retion on the /o)ern0ent to %rant or not to %rant san$tion
to prose$ute $orrupt and dishonest politi$ians M.Ps M...As and
/o)ern0ent offi$ials.
=. In response to the noti$e issued !" this *ourt affida)its
ha)e !een filed !" se)eral 'tate /o)ern0ents and Union
4
Page 4
Territories !ut no $ounter affida)it has !een filed !" the Union
of India. The stand ta&en in all the affida)its is al0ost identi$al.
A$$ordin% to the said stand the o!>e$t of 'e$tion 1( of the P*
A$t is to prote$t pu!li$ ser)ants a%ainst irresponsi!le fri)olous
and )e?atious pro$eedin%s for a$ts perfor0ed in %ood faith in
the dis$har%e of their offi$ial duties and to prote$t the0 fro0
unne$essar" harass0ent of le%al pro$eedin%s arisin% out of
unfounded and !aseless $o0plaints. In the a!sen$e of su$h a
pro)ision the pu!li$ ser)ant 0a" not !e in$lined to offer his@her
free and fran& opinion and 0a" not !e a!le to fun$tion freel".
6. Ae ha)e heard Mr. 9.K. /ar% learned $ounsel for the
petitioner and Mr. P.'. 7arasi0ha learned Additional 'oli$itor
/eneral for the Union of India and learned $ounsel for )arious
'tates.
5. 'e$tion 1( of the P* A$t is as follo#sBC
19. Previous sanction necessary for
prosecution.
(1) No court shall take cognizance of an
offence punishale under sections !" 1#"
11" 1$ and 1% alleged to have een
committed y a pulic servant" e&cept 'ith
the previous sanction"
(a) in the case of a person 'ho is employed
in connection 'ith the affairs of the (nion
and is not removale from his office save
=
Page 5
y or 'ith the sanction of the )entral
*overnment" of that *overnment+
() in the case of a person 'ho is employed
in connection 'ith the affairs of a ,tate and
is not removale from his office save y or
'ith the sanction of the ,tate *overnment"
of that *overnment+
(c) in the case of any other person" of the
authority competent to remove him from
his office.
(-) .here for any reason 'hatsoever any
dout arises as to 'hether the previous
sanction as re/uired under su0section (1)
should e given y the )entral *overnment
or the ,tate *overnment or any other
authority" such sanction shall e given y
that *overnment or authority 'hich 'ould
have een competent to remove the pulic
servant from his office at the time 'hen the
offence 'as alleged to have een
committed.
($) Not'ithstanding anything contained in
the )ode of )riminal Procedure" 19!$ (- of
19!1)"
(a) no finding" sentence or order passed y
a special 2udge shall e reversed or altered
y a court in appeal" confirmation or
revision on the ground of the asence of" or
any error" omission or irregularity in" the
sanction re/uired under su0section (1)"
unless in the opinion of that court" a failure
of 3ustice has in fact een occasioned
therey+
() no court shall stay the proceedings
under this 4ct on the ground of any error"
omission or irregularity in the sanction
granted y the authority" unless it is
satisfied that such error" omission or
irregularity has resulted in a failure of
3ustice+
(c) no court shall stay the proceedings
under this 4ct on any other ground and no
6
Page 6
court shall e&ercise the po'ers of revision
in relation to any interlocutory order passed
in any in/uiry" trial" appeal or other
proceedings.
(1) 5n determining under su0section ($)
'hether the asence of" or any error"
omission or irregularity in" such sanction
has occasioned or resulted in a failure of
3ustice the court shall have regard to the
fact 'hether the o3ection could and should
have een raised at any earlier stage in the
proceedings. 6&planation.7or the
purposes of this section"
(a) error includes competency of the
authority to grant sanction+
() a sanction re/uired for prosecution
includes reference to any re/uirement that
the prosecution shall e at the instance of a
specified authority or 'ith the sanction of a
specified person or any re/uirement of a
similar nature.8
;. Duestion for $onsideration is #hether 'e$tion 1( of the P*
A$t is un$onstitutional and #hether an" further dire$tion is
$alled for in pu!li$ interest and for enfor$e0ent or funda0ental
ri%htsE
+. The issue raised in this petition is no lon%er res integra.
Re1uire0ent of san$tion has salutar" o!>e$t of prote$tin% an
inno$ent pu!li$ ser)ant a%ainst un#arranted and mala fide
prose$ution. Undou!tedl" there $an !e no toleran$e to
$orruption #hi$h under0ines $ore $onstitutional )alues of
>usti$e e1ualit" li!ert" and fraternit". At the sa0e ti0e need
5
Page 7
to prose$ute and punish the $orrupt is no %round to den"
prote$tion to the honest. Mere possi!ilit" of a!use $annot !e a
%round to de$lare a pro)ision other#ise )alid to !e
un$onstitutional. The e?er$ise of po#er has to !e re%ulated to
effe$tuate the purpose of la#. The 0atter has alread" !een
dealt #ith in )arious de$isions of this *ourt.
(. In /ineet -arain & Ors. )s. Union of India & $nr.
(1((5) 2 '** 1(( this *ourt o!ser)ed in para%raph 4 as
follo#sB
0. 9he facts and circumstances of the
present case do indicate that it is of utmost
pulic importance that this matter is
e&amined thoroughly y this )ourt to
ensure that all government agencies"
entrusted 'ith the duty to discharge their
functions and oligations in accordance
'ith la'" do so" earing in mind constantly
the concept of e/uality enshrined in the
)onstitution and the asic tenet of rule of
la': ;e you ever so high" the la' is aove
you.8 5nvestigation into every accusation
made against each and every person on a
reasonale asis" irrespective of the
position and status of that person" must e
conducted and completed e&peditiously.
9his is imperative to retain pulic
confidence in the impartial 'orking of the
government agencies.8
;
Page 8
1:. A%ain in a later order in the sa0e $ase i.e. /ineet
-arain & Ors. )s. Union of India & $nr., reported in (1((+) 1
'** 225 it #as o!ser)ed as underB
11. 9hese principles of pulic life are of
general application in every democracy and
one is e&pected to ear them in mind 'hile
scrutinising the conduct of every holder of
a pulic office. 5t is trite that the holders of
pulic offices are entrusted 'ith certain
po'ers to e e&ercised in pulic interest
alone and" therefore" the office is held y
them in trust for the people. 4ny deviation
from the path of rectitude y any of them
amounts to a reach of trust and must e
severely dealt 'ith instead of eing pushed
under the carpet. 5f the conduct amounts to
an offence" it must e promptly
investigated and the offender against
'hom a prima facie case is made out
should e prosecuted e&peditiously so that
the ma3esty of la' is upheld and the rule of
la' vindicated. 5t is the duty of the 3udiciary
to enforce the rule of la' and" therefore" to
guard against erosion of the rule of la'.
12. 9he adverse impact of lack of proity in
pulic life leading to a high degree of
corruption is manifold. 5t also has adverse
effect on foreign investment and funding
from the 5nternational <onetary 7und and
the .orld ;ank 'ho have 'arned that
future aid to underdeveloped countries may
e su3ect to the re/uisite steps eing
taken to eradicate corruption" 'hich
prevents international aid from reaching
those for 'hom it is meant. 5ncreasing
corruption has led to investigative
3ournalism 'hich is of value to a free
society. 9he need to highlight corruption in
+
Page 9
pulic life through the medium of pulic
interest litigation invoking 3udicial revie'
may e fre/uent in 5ndia ut is not
unkno'n in other countries: =. v. ,ecy. of
,tate for 7oreign and )ommon'ealth
4ffairs" 199% (1) .>= $?@.
................................
................................
13. .........................
1%. 9ime0limit of three months for grant of
sanction for prosecution must e strictly
adhered to. Ao'ever" additional time of one
month may e allo'ed 'here consultation
is re/uired 'ith the 4ttorney *eneral (4*)
or any other la' officer in the 4*Bs office.8
11. In a re$ent >ud%0ent of this *ourt in Su%ramanian
Swamy )s. Manmohan Singh & $nr. (2:12) 4 '** 5= the
1uestion for $onsideration #as #hether a pri)ate $itizen has
lo$us to prose$ute a pu!li$ ser)ant and to o!tain san$tion and
ho# an appli$ation for san$tion #as to !e dealt #ith. It #as
held that an" appli$ation for san$tion sou%ht e)en !" a pri)ate
$itizen 0ust !e loo&ed into e?peditiousl" and de$ided as per
the o!ser)ations of this *ourt in /ineet -arain case (supra)
and %uidelines fra0ed !" the *V* #hi$h #ere $ir$ulated )ide
Offi$e Order 7o. 41@6@:6 dated 12.:6.2::6. The rele)ant
$lauses ha)e !een 1uoted in the said >ud%0ent. In para%raphs
4: 44 =( 6: of the leadin% >ud%0ent it #as o!ser)edB
(
Page 10
04. .hile dealing 'ith the issue relating
to maintainaility of a private complaint"
the )onstitution ;ench oserved: (4.=.
4ntulay vs. =amdas ,rini'as Nayak and
4nr. (19?1) - ,)) %##" para @)
@. 5t is a 'ell0recognised principle of
criminal 3urisprudence that anyone can set
or put the criminal la' into motion e&cept
'here the statute enacting or creating an
offence indicates to the contrary. 9he
scheme of the )ode of )riminal Procedure
envisages t'o parallel and independent
agencies for taking criminal offences to
court. 6ven for the most serious offence of
murder" it 'as not disputed that a private
complaint can" not only e filed ut can e
entertained and proceeded 'ith according
to la'. >ocus standi of the complainant is a
concept foreign to criminal 3urisprudence
save and e&cept that 'here the statute
creating an offence provides for the
eligiility of the complainant" y necessary
implication the general principle gets
e&cluded y such statutory provision.
Numerous statutory provisions" can e
referred to in support of this legal position
such as (i) ,ection 1?!04 of the ,ea
)ustoms 4ct" 1?!? (ii) ,ection 9! of the
*old ()ontrol) 4ct" 19@? (iii) ,ection @ of
the 5mports and 6&ports ()ontrol) 4ct" 191!
(iv) ,ection -!1 and ,ection -!9 of the
5ncome 9a& 4ct" 19@1 (v) ,ection @1 of the
7oreign 6&change =egulation 4ct" 19!$" (vi)
,ection @-1 of the )ompanies 4ct" 19%@
and (vii) ,ection !! of the 6lectricity
(,upply) 4ct" 191?. 9his list is only
illustrative and not e&haustive. .hile
,ection 19# of the )ode of )riminal
Procedure permits anyone to approach the
<agistrate 'ith a complaint" it does not
prescrie any /ualification the complainant
is re/uired to fulfil to e eligile to file a
1:
Page 11
complaint. ;ut 'here an eligiility criterion
for a complainant is contemplated specific
provisions have een made such as to e
found in ,ections 19% to 199 )rP). 9hese
specific provisions clearly indicate that in
the asence of any such statutory
provision" a locus standi of a complainant is
a concept foreign to criminal 3urisprudence.
5n other 'ords" the principle that anyone
can set or put the criminal la' in motion
remains intact unless contra0indicated y a
statutory provision. 9his general principle of
nearly universal application is founded on a
policy that an offence i.e. an act or
omission made punishale y any la' for
the time eing in force C is not merely an
offence committed in relation to the person
'ho suffers harm ut is also an offence
against society. 9he society for its orderly
and peaceful development is interested in
the punishment of the offender. 9herefore"
prosecution for serious offences is
undertaken in the name of the ,tate
representing the people 'hich 'ould
e&clude any element of private vendetta or
vengeance. 5f such is the pulic policy
underlying penal statutes" 'ho rings an
act or omission made punishale y la' to
the notice of the authority competent to
deal 'ith it" is immaterial and irrelevant
unless the statute indicates to the contrary.
Punishment of the offender in the interest
of the society eing one of the o3ects
ehind penal statutes enacted for larger
good of the society" right to initiate
proceedings cannot e 'hittled do'n"
circumscried or fettered y putting it into
a strait3acket formula of locus standi
unkno'n to criminal 3urisprudence" save
and e&cept specific statutory e&ception. 9o
hold that such an e&ception e&ists that a
private complaint for offences of corruption
11
Page 12
committed y pulic servant is not
maintainale" the court 'ould re/uire an
unamiguous statutory provision and a
tangled 'e of argument for dra'ing a far0
fetched implication" cannot e a sustitute
for an e&press statutory provision.8
(emphasis supplied)
00. 5n vie' of the aforesaid 3udgment of
the )onstitution ;ench in 4ntulay case" it
must e held that the appellant has the
right to file a complaint for prosecution of
=espondent - in respect of the offences
allegedly committed y him under the 19??
4ct.
56. )D)" after taking note of the 3udgment
of the Pun3a and Aaryana Aigh )ourt in
2ag3it ,ingh v. ,tate of Pun3a" ,tate of
;ihar v. P.P. ,harma" ,upt. of Police ();5) v.
Eeepak )ho'dhary" framed guidelines
'hich 'ere circulated vide Fffice Frder No.
$1G%G#% dated 1-0%0-##%. 9he relevant
clauses of the guidelines are e&tracted
elo':
7 )i) *rant of sanction is an administrative
act. 9he purpose is to protect the pulic
servant from harassment y frivolous or
ve&atious prosecution and not to shield the
corrupt. 9he /uestion of giving opportunity
to the pulic servant at that stage does not
arise. 9he sanctioning authority has only to
see 'hether the facts 'ould prima facie
constitute the offence.
)ii) 9he competent authority cannot
emark upon an in/uiry to 3udge the truth
of the allegations on the asis of
representation 'hich may e filed y the
accused person efore the sanctioning
authority" y asking the 5F to offer his
12
Page 13
comments or to further investigate the
matter in the light of representation made
y the accused person or y other'ise
holding a parallel investigationGen/uiry y
calling for the recordGreport of his
department.
H H H
)vii) Ao'ever" if in any case" the
sanctioning authority after consideration of
the entire material placed efore it"
entertains any dout on any point the
competent authority may specify the dout
'ith sufficient particulars and may re/uest
the authority 'ho has sought sanction to
clear the dout. ;ut that 'ould e only to
clear the dout in order that the authority
may apply its mind properly" and not for the
purpose of considering the representations
of the accused 'hich may e filed 'hile the
matter is pending sanction.
)viii) 5f the sanctioning authority seeks the
comments of the 5F 'hile the matter is
pending efore it for sanction" it 'ill almost
e impossile for the sanctioning authority
to adhere to the time0limit allo'ed y the
,upreme )ourt in Dineet Narain case.8
14. 9he aforementioned guidelines are in
conformity 'ith the la' laid do'n y this
)ourt that 'hile considering the issue
regarding grant or refusal of sanction" the
only thing 'hich the competent authority is
re/uired to see is 'hether the material
placed y the complainant or the
investigating agency prima facie discloses
commission of an offence. 9he competent
authority cannot undertake a detailed
in/uiry to decide 'hether or not the
allegations made against the pulic servant
are true.8
14
Page 14
In $on$urrin% >ud%0ent it #as further o!ser)edB
23. 9oday" corruption in our country not
only poses a grave danger to the concept
of constitutional governance" it also
threatens the very foundation of the 5ndian
democracy and the =ule of >a'. 9he
magnitude of corruption in our pulic life is
incompatile 'ith the concept of a socialist
secular democratic repulic. 5t cannot e
disputed that 'here corruption egins all
rights end. )orruption devalues human
rights" chokes development and
undermines 3ustice" lierty" e/uality"
fraternity 'hich are the core values in our
Preamular vision. 9herefore" the duty of
the court is that any anti0corruption la' has
to e interpreted and 'orked out in such a
fashion as to strengthen the fight against
corruption. 9hat is to say in a situation
'here t'o constructions are eminently
reasonale" the court has to accept the one
that seeks to eradicate corruption to the
one 'hich seeks to perpetuate it.
84. 9he learned 4ttorney *eneral in the
course of his sumission fairly admitted
efore us that out of the total $19 re/uests
for sanction" in respect of 1-@ of such
re/uests" sanction is a'aited. 9herefore" in
more than one0third cases of re/uest for
prosecution in corruption cases against
pulic servants" sanctions have not een
accorded. 9he aforesaid scenario raises
very important constitutional issues as 'ell
as some /uestions relating to interpretation
of such sanctioning provision and also the
role that an independent 3udiciary has to
play in maintaining the =ule of >a' and
common manBs faith in the 3ustice0
delivering system. ;oth the =ule of >a' and
1=
Page 15
e/uality efore la' are cardinal /uestions
(sic principles) in our constitutional la's as
also in international la' and in this conte&t
the role of the 3udiciary is very vital. 5n his
famous treatise on 4dministrative >a'"
Prof. .ade 'hile elaorating the concept of
the =ule of >a' referred to the opinion of
>ord *riffiths 'hich runs as follo's:
C the 3udiciary accepts a responsiility for
the maintenance of the rule of la' that
emraces a 'illingness to oversee
e&ecutive action and to refuse to
countenance ehaviour that threatens
either asic human rights or the rule of
la'.8 I,ee =. v. Aorseferry =oad
<agistratesB )ourt" e& p ;ennett" 4) at p.
@- 4.J
5 am in respectful agreement 'ith the
aforesaid principle.
85. Keeping those principles in mind" as 'e
must" if 'e look at ,ection 19 of the P) 4ct
'hich ars a court from taking cognizance
of cases of corruption against a pulic
servant under ,ections !" 1#" 11" 1$ and 1%
of the 4ct" unless the )entral or the ,tate
*overnment" as the case may e" has
accorded sanction" virtually imposes fetters
on private citizens and also on prosecutors
from approaching court against corrupt
pulic servants. 9hese protections are not
availale to other citizens. Pulic servants
are treated as a special class of persons
en3oying the said protection so that they
can perform their duties 'ithout fear and
favour and 'ithout threats of malicious
prosecution. Ao'ever" the said protection
against malicious prosecution 'hich 'as
e&tended in pulic interest cannot ecome
a shield to protect corrupt officials. 9hese
provisions eing e&ceptions to the e/uality
16
Page 16
provision of 4rticle 11 are analogous to the
provisions of protective discrimination and
these protections must e construed very
narro'ly. 9hese procedural provisions
relating to sanction must e construed in
such a manner as to advance the causes of
honesty and 3ustice and good governance
as opposed to escalation of corruption.
81. 9herefore" in every case 'here an
application is made to an appropriate
authority for grant of prosecution in
connection 'ith an offence under the P)
4ct it is the ounden duty of such authority
to apply its mind urgently to the situation
and decide the issue 'ithout eing
influenced y any e&traneous
consideration. 5n doing so" the authority
must make a conscious effort to ensure the
=ule of >a' and cause of 3ustice is
advanced. 5n considering the /uestion of
granting or refusing such sanction" the
authority is ans'erale to la' and la'
alone. 9herefore" the re/uirement to take
the decision 'ith a reasonale dispatch is
of the essence in such a situation. Eelay in
granting sanction proposal th'arts a very
valid social purpose" namely" the purpose of
a speedy trial 'ith the re/uirement to ring
the culprit to ook. 9herefore" in this case
the right of the sanctioning authority" 'hile
either sanctioning or refusing to grant
sanction" is coupled 'ith a duty.
82. 9he sanctioning authority must ear in
mind that 'hat is at stake is the pulic
confidence in the maintenance of the =ule
of >a' 'hich is fundamental in the
administration of 3ustice. Eelay in granting
such sanction has spoilt many valid
prosecutions and is adversely vie'ed in
pulic mind that in the name of considering
15
Page 17
a prayer for sanction" a protection is given
to a corrupt pulic official as a /uid pro /uo
for services rendered y the pulic official
in the past or may e in the future and the
sanctioning authority and the corrupt
officials 'ere or are partners in the same
misdeeds. 5 may hasten to add that this
may not e the factual position in this (sic
case) ut the general demoralising effect of
such a popular perception is profound and
pernicious.
88. ;y causing delay in considering the
re/uest for sanction" the sanctioning
authority stultifies 3udicial scrutiny and
determination of the allegations against
corrupt official and thus the legitimacy of
the 3udicial institutions is eroded. 5t" thus"
deprives a citizen of his legitimate and
fundamental right to get 3ustice y setting
the criminal la' in motion and therey
frustrates his right to access 3udicial
remedy 'hich is a constitutionally
protected right. 5n this connection" if 'e
look at ,ection 19 of the P) 4ct" 'e find
that no time0limit is mentioned therein. 9his
has virtually armed the sanctioning
authority 'ith unridled po'er 'hich has
often resulted in protecting the guilty and
perpetuating criminality and in3ustice in
society.
86. 4rticle 11 must e construed as a
guarantee against uncanalised and
aritrary po'er. 9herefore" the asence of
any time0limit in granting sanction in
,ection 19 of the P) 4ct is not in
consonance 'ith the re/uirement of the
due process of la' 'hich has een read
into our )onstitution y the )onstitution
;ench decision of this )ourt in <aneka
*andhi v. (nion of 5ndia (19!?) 1 ,)) -1?.
1;
Page 18
34. 5 may not e understood to have
e&pressed any dout aout the
constitutional validity of ,ection 19 of the
P) 4ct" ut in my 3udgment the po'er
under ,ection 19 of the P) 4ct must e
reasonaly e&ercised. 5n my 3udgment
Parliament and the appropriate authority
must consider restructuring ,ection 19 of
the P) 4ct in such a manner as to make it
consonant 'ith reason" 3ustice and fair play.
39. 5n my vie'" Parliament should consider
the constitutional imperative of 4rticle 11
enshrining the =ule of >a' 'herein due
process of la'8 has een read into y
introducing a time0limit in ,ection 19 of the
P) 4ct" 19?? for its 'orking in a reasonale
manner. Parliament may" in my opinion"
consider the follo'ing guidelines:
(a) 4ll proposals for sanction placed efore
any sanctioning authority empo'ered to
grant sanction for prosecution of a pulic
servant under ,ection 19 of the P) 4ct
must e decided 'ithin a period of three
months of the receipt of the proposal y
the authority concerned.
() .here consultation is re/uired 'ith the
4ttorney *eneral or the ,olicitor *eneral or
the 4dvocate *eneral of the ,tate" as the
case may e" and the same is not possile
'ithin the three months mentioned in
clause (a) aove" an e&tension of one
month period may e allo'ed" ut the
re/uest for consultation is to e sent in
'riting 'ithin the three months mentioned
in clause (a) aove. 4 copy of the said
re/uest 'ill e sent to the prosecuting
agency or the private complainant to
1+
Page 19
intimate them aout the e&tension of the
time0limit.
(c) 4t the end of the e&tended period of
time0limit" if no decision is taken" sanction
'ill e deemed to have een granted to the
proposal for prosecution" and the
prosecuting agency or the private
complainant 'ill proceed to file the charge0
sheetGcomplaint in the court to commence
prosecution 'ithin 1% days of the e&piry of
the aforementioned time0limit.8
The a!o)e o!ser)ations full" $o)er the issue raised in this
petition.
12. Thus #hile it is not possi!le to hold that the re1uire0ent
of san$tion is un$onstitutional the $o0petent authorit" has to
ta&e a de$ision on the issue of san$tion e?peditiousl" as
alread" o!ser)ed. A fine !alan$e has to !e 0aintained !et#een
need to prote$t a pu!li$ ser)ant a%ainst mala fide prose$ution
on the one hand and the o!>e$t of upholdin% the pro!it" in
pu!li$ life in prose$utin% the pu!li$ ser)ant a%ainst #ho0
prima facie 0aterial in support of alle%ation of $orruption
e?ists on the other hand.
14. In )ie# of the la# laid do#n !" this *ourt no further
dire$tions are ne$essar".
1=. The #rit petition is disposed of.
1(
Page 20
.............................................3.
+ T.S. THA$UR ,
.............................................3.
+ ADARSH $UMAR GOEL ,
N(- D()#.
A%/%"0 01* 2023
2: