Read Time: 04 minutes
The Supreme Court further held that non-compliance with a mandatory period to sanction prosecution on corruption charges against a public servant cannot and should not automatically lead to the quashing of criminal proceedings because it has an element of public interest having a direct bearing on the rule of law.
The Supreme Court recently held that 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", a bench of Justices BR Gavai and PS Narasimha held.
These observations came to be made by the division bench while holding that the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation) for the Appointing Authority under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to decide upon a request for sanctioning prosecution against a public servant is mandatory.
Court noted that 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.
However, Court clarified, that 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, it added.
"Grant of sanction being an exercise of executive power, it is subject to the standard principles of judicial review such as application of independent mind; only by the competent authority, without bias, after consideration of relevant material and by eschewing irrelevant considerations. As the power to grant sanction for prosecution has legal consequences, it must naturally be exercised within a reasonable period.... ", the court observed.
It further held 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 here.
Further, referring to the intention of the Parliament behind the first proviso to Section 19 of PC Act, court noted that the provision uses the expression ‘endeavour’ with the subsequent provisions.
"The third proviso mandates that the extended period can be granted only for one month after reasons are recorded in writing. There is no further extension....", Court noted.
Case Title: VIJAY RAJMOHAN vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CBI, ACB, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
Please Login or Register
