2004 (11) TMI 524 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether a Governor can act in his discretion and against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in a matter of grant of sanction for prosecution of Ministers for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or under the Indian Penal Code? Held that - If, on these facts and circumstances, the Governor cannot act in his own discretion there would be a complete breakdown of the rule of law inasmuch as it would then be open for Governments to refuse sanction in spite of overwhelming material showing that a prima-facie case is made out. If, in cases where prima-facie case is clearly made out, sanction to prosecute high functionaries is refused or withheld democracy itself will be at stake. It would then lead to a situation where people in power may break the law with impunity safe in the knowledge that they will not be prosecuted as the requisite sanction will not be granted. The Writ Petitions filed by the two Ministers will stand dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned we direct that the Order of the Governor sanctioning prosecution should be given effect to and that of the Council of Ministers refusing to do so may be set aside. The Court shall now proceed with the prosecution. As the case is very old, we request the Court to dispose off the case as expeditiously as possible.

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Governor can act in his discretion and against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in a matter of grant of sanction for prosecution of Ministers.
2. Whether the doctrine of bias applies to the decision of the Council of Ministers in granting or refusing sanction for prosecution.
3. Whether the Governor's decision to grant sanction for prosecution was valid in light of the Council of Ministers' refusal to do so.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Discretion of the Governor:
The central issue was whether the Governor could act in his discretion against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers in granting sanction for prosecution of Ministers. Article 163 of the Constitution of India was examined, which generally requires the Governor to act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in cases where he is required to act in his discretion. The judgment referred to the case of Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, which held that the Governor normally acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers but can act in his discretion in exceptional situations. The court also cited the case of Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak, where it was held that the Governor could act independently in granting sanction for prosecution if there was a likelihood of bias in the Council of Ministers' decision.

2. Doctrine of Bias:
The court examined whether the doctrine of bias applied to the Council of Ministers' decision. It was argued that bias might be inherently present in the advice of the Council of Ministers when deciding on the prosecution of its members. The judgment referred to several cases, including A. K. Kraipak vs. Union of India and Kirti Deshmankar vs. Union of India, which discussed the subtle operation of bias and the reasonable likelihood of bias. The court concluded that in cases where there is apparent bias, the Governor could act in his discretion. The Division Bench's distinction that the principle of bias applied only to the Chief Minister and not to other Ministers was rejected.

3. Validity of the Governor's Decision:
The court evaluated the competing decisions of the Council of Ministers and the Governor. The Council of Ministers had refused to grant sanction on the ground of insufficient material, whereas the Governor, after considering the Lokayukta's detailed report, found sufficient grounds for prosecution. The judgment emphasized that the Lokayukta's report was comprehensive and based on substantial evidence. The court held that the Council of Ministers' decision was irrational and based on non-consideration of relevant factors, whereas the Governor's decision was reasonable and justified. The court noted that if the Governor could not act in his discretion in such cases, it would lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and allow high functionaries to evade prosecution.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, and the decisions of the Single Judge and Division Bench were set aside. The Writ Petitions filed by the two Ministers were dismissed. The court directed that the Governor's order granting sanction for prosecution should be given effect, and the Council of Ministers' order refusing sanction should be set aside. The court requested the trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously.

← Previous Next →