9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The need for sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for prosecution of a Chief Minister. The Governor's discretion in granting sanction for prosecution. Judgment Summary: The case involved a complaint against the Chief Minister of Maharashtra for offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate initially refused to entertain the complaint due to lack of government sanction u/s 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court upheld this view, emphasizing the need for sanction. The State of Maharashtra sought special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the Governor's discretion in deciding on the sanction. The Attorney General argued that the Governor's decision should be final and not subject to court interference. However, the Respondents conceded that the Governor should exercise individual discretion in this case. The Judges noted the concession made before the High Court regarding the Governor's discretion. The Attorney General's attempt to challenge this concession was rejected, emphasizing the finality of judicial records. The Judges highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of court records and the limitations on challenging statements made during proceedings. The written submissions by the Attorney further supported the concession made regarding the Governor's discretion. In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the application for special leave, affirming the importance of the concession made before the High Court. It was determined that the Governor, in deciding on sanction for prosecuting a Chief Minister, should act in his own discretion rather than relying on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Permitting the State of Maharashtra to retract the concession and raise new contentions was deemed unnecessary and not in the interest of justice.
|
