[Prevention of Corruption Act] Delay in grant of sanction for prosecution would not lead to quashing of charges: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday held that the period of three months prescribed under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the appointing authority to decide upon a request for sanction to prosecute a public servant, is mandatory in nature [Vijay Rajmohan vs State represented through Inspector, Chennai)].However, the criminal proceedings would not be automatically quashed merely because of such delay in sanction, but such a delay could be subject to judicial review, the Court held."Non-compliance with a mandatory period cannot and should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings because the prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an element of public interest having a direct bearing on the rule of law. It must also be kept in mind that the complainant or victim has no other remedy available for judicial redressal if the criminal proceedings stand automatically quashed," the Court said..The bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha, however, held that if a decision is not taken within three months coupled with an additional month of extension for legal consultation, then the aggrieved party would be entitled to approach a writ court.." We hold that the period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory," the top court said. .Further, it was held that the aggrieved officer is entitled to seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. "This is especially crucial if the non-grant of sanction is withheld without reason, resulting in the stifling of a genuine case of corruption. Simultaneously, the CVC shall enquire into the matter in the exercise of its powers under Section 8(1)(e) and (f) and take such corrective action as it is empowered under the CVC Act," held the apex court. .Pertinently, the Court also made it clear that an order of the appointing authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, would not be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for its decision."The consequence of non-compliance 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 under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act," reads the judgment..The appellant in this case was an official of the Central Secretarial Service, Government of India, who faced charges of having assets disproportionate to his income.In September 2015 the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had completed the investigation against the appellant and sought sanction from the appointing authority, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), for prosecuting the appellant. The DoPT believed that there were many errors in the investigation conducted by the CBI and, therefore, sought the opinion of the CVC in January 2016. It was in July 2017 that DoPT granted sanction for prosecution, after about one year and ten months. The appellant filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial court. This application was filed on the ground that the sanction order was passed without application of mind. The trial court allowed the application and discharged the officer on the ground that the order of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was vitiated due to non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority.The same was, however, set aside by the Madras High Court by allowing a criminal revision petition filed by the State. The High Court held that under Section 8(1)(g) of the CVC Act, one of the functions of the CVC is to tender advice to the Central government on the matter of grant of sanction. Thus, the advice of CVC could not be treated as irrelevant material. The High Court also held that the DoPT, in addition to the advice of the CVC, had taken into account all the relevant material and had independently applied its mind before granting sanction to prosecute the appellant.The officer challenged the High Court order before the top court. .The Supreme Court held that that 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. "Immunity to public servants and protections are not available to other citizens because of the inherent vulnerabilities of a public servant and the need to protect them. 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," the Court said..However, the Court clarified that the sanctioning authority must bear in mind that public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law, which is fundamental in the administration of justice, is at stake in such cases.By causing delay in considering the request for sanction, the sanctioning authority stultifies judicial scrutiny, thereby, vitiating the process of determination of the allegations against the corrupt official. "Delays in prosecuting the corrupt breeds a culture of impunity and leads to systemic resignation to the existence of corruption in public life. Such inaction is fraught with the risk of making future generations getting accustomed to corruption as a way of life," the bench underscored.It, however, proceeded to reject the appeal while permitting the appellant to seek such remedies as are permissible in law on the basis of principles laid down in the judgment.Additional Solicitor General SV Raju argued for the CBI.Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani and advocates Mugdha Pande and PV Yogeswaran appeared for the appellant. .[Read Judgment]