Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s.19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – Whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant u/s.19 of 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 – Held: The position of law and the legal regime obtained by virtue of the five legislations, the Cr.P.C, DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal Act on the subject of corruption, operates as integrated scheme – The five legislations must be read together to enable the authorities to sub-serve the common purpose and objectives underlying these legislations – CVC, constituted under the CVC Act is specifically entrusted with the duty and function of providing expert advice on the subject – It may be necessary for the appointing authority to call for and seek the opinion of the CVC before it takes any decision on the request for sanction for prosecution – The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration – Opinion of the CVC is only advisory – It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority – Final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind – Thus, there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the CVC before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant – In the present case, on examining the correspondence and the long-drawn communications between the CBI, the DoPT, and the CVC, it is found that the inquiry made by the appointing authority, the DoPT, was only for soliciting further information, and particularly the opinion given by CVC is also advisory – Sanction order of the DoPT dated 24.07.2017 is an independent decision of the department that was taken based on the material before it – Plea of the appellant that the order of sanction suffers from illegality due to non-application of mind or acting under dictation, not accepted.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s.19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – s.8(1)(f) – Whether the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation - As per the 2018 Amendment through the 2nd Proviso to s.19(1) of the PC Act) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not and whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within the mandatory period – Held: The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory – Consequence of noncompliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason – The competent authority shall be accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC u/s.8(1)(f) of the CVC Act.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.197 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s.97 – Held: The public policy behind providing immunity from prosecution without the sanction of the State is to insulate the public servant against harassment and malicious prosecution – It is for this very reason that good faith clauses are incorporated in statutes extending protection to officers exercising statutory duties in good faith – Statutory provisions requiring sanction before prosecution either u/s.197 Cr.P.C. or u/s.97 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose of protecting a public servant – However, the said protection is neither a shield against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against corrupt practices – The limited immunity or bar is only subject to a sanction by the appointing authority – Grant of sanction being an exercise of executive power is subject to the standard principles of judicial review.
Administrative Law – Principle of accountability – Held: Principle of accountability is considered as a cornerstone of the human rights framework – It is a crucial feature that must govern the relationship between “duty bearers” in authority and “right holders” affected by their actions – Three essential constituent dimensions of Accountability- (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability and (iii) enforceability – Discussed.
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) 7 SCC 622 : [1997] 3 Suppl. SCR 705; Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. (1998) 1 SCC
226 : [1997] 6 Suppl. SCR 595; Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2012) 3 SCC 64 : [2012] 3 SCR 52 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.