Article 226: Supreme Court Says High Courts Cannot Rewrite CrPC to Create New Trial Stage

The Supreme Court has held that a high court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, cannot rewrite the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by directing sessions courts or special courts under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act to examine the sanctioning authority before framing charges or commencement of trial.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar observed that courts cannot introduce a new stage in a criminal trial through judicial directions when no such procedure is contemplated under the CrPC or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

Court was hearing appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against a Madhya Pradesh High Court judgment and the subsequent dismissal of its review petition.

Why did the Supreme Court interfere with the high court's directions?

The case arose from a writ petition filed by respondent Ravi Shankar Singh seeking quashing of the prosecution sanction granted against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Although the high court dismissed the writ petition, it issued a set of prospective guidelines in its order dated May 8, 2020, governing how trial courts should deal with sanction orders in corruption cases.

The respondent was subsequently acquitted of offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, making the challenge to the validity of the sanction infructuous. However, the State challenged the broader directions issued by the high court, arguing that they would affect criminal trials beyond the present case.

In view of these peculiar facts, the Supreme Court confined itself to examining whether the high court had the power to issue such directions.

High court's guidelines on sanction under the PC Act

The high court had directed that trial courts should examine the sanctioning authority by exercising powers under Section 311 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 348 of the BNSS) before framing charges, even where the accused had not challenged the validity of the sanction. According to the High Court, an invalid sanction could go to the root of the prosecution and render the order taking cognisance void.

It further directed that if the trial court found the sanction to be valid, it should then proceed to hear the prosecution and defence on framing of charges.

However, if the sanction was found to be fundamentally defective either on the competence of the sanctioning authority or lack of application of mind, the trial court was directed to discharge the accused and return the chargesheet to the investigating agency, leaving it free to obtain a fresh sanction and file the chargesheet again.

The high court clarified that these directions would apply prospectively and would not affect cases in which charges had already been framed and evidence had commenced.

Why did the State challenge the high court's directions?

The State argued that the directions would create long-term difficulties in criminal trials not only under the Prevention of Corruption Act but also in other serious criminal cases.

It contended that the high court had incorrectly interpreted Section 311 of the CrPC, which empowers courts to summon or examine witnesses at any stage of an inquiry or trial, as permitting examination of the sanctioning authority immediately after filing of the chargesheet and before framing of charges.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent argued that Section 311 itself allows the court to exercise this power at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC, making the high court's directions legally justified.

CrPC procedure cannot be altered through judicial directions

Rejecting the respondent's contention, the Supreme Court held that the CrPC lays down a complete code governing the conduct of criminal trials.

Court noted that the procedure for criminal trials is specifically provided in Chapters XV to XXI of the CrPC, whereas Section 311 falls under Chapter XXIV, which contains general provisions relating to inquiries and trials.

"These general provisions cannot be read into a step in conduct of trial so as to clothe a criminal court with jurisdiction to bypass the procedure provided for conduct of trial and evolve a new procedure and methodology for conducting trial by examining the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge," the Bench observed.

Emphasising that no such stage exists under the CrPC, Court added:

"We are afraid, a new stage for trial cannot be introduced by a judicial fiat. Trial in a criminal case including in offences under the PC Act has to be conducted in the manner provided for in the CrPC/Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita read with the provisions contained in the PC Act."

The Bench further held:

"The high court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot re-write the CrPC and direct all the Sessions Courts/Special Courts under the PC Act to examine the sanctioning authority even before framing of charge or commencement of trial."

Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the guidelines and directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Ravi Shankar Singh & Ors

Bench: Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Atul S Chandurkar

Date of Judgment: June 10, 2026