2014 (8) TMI 1155 - SC - Indian Laws

Vires of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, ( PC Act ), 1988 - prosecution of all cases registered and investigated under the provisions of PC Act against the politicians, M.L.As, M.Ps and Government officials, without sanction as required under Section 19 of the PC Act. Whether Section 19 of the PC Act is unconstitutional and whether any further direction is called for in public interest and for enforcement or fundamental rights? Held that - The issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra. Requirement of sanction has salutary object of protecting an innocent public servant against unwarranted and mala fide prosecution. Undoubtedly, there can be no tolerance to corruption which undermines core constitutional values of justice, equality, liberty and fraternity. At the same time, need to prosecute and punish the corrupt is no ground to deny protection to the honest. Mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground to declare a provision, otherwise valid, to be unconstitutional. The exercise of power has to be regulated to effectuate the purpose of law. The appellant has the right to file a complaint for prosecution of Respondent 2 in respect of the offences allegedly committed by him under the 1988 Act. While it is not possible to hold that the requirement of sanction is unconstitutional, the competent authority has to take a decision on the issue of sanction expeditiously as already observed. A fine balance has to be maintained between need to protect a public servant against mala fide prosecution on the one hand and the object of upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption exists, on the other hand. Petition disposed off.

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Requirement of sanction for prosecuting public servants.
3. Misuse of the provision for sanction.
4. Timeliness and procedure for granting sanction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutionality of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988:
The petition sought to declare Section 19 of the PC Act unconstitutional. The Court held that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 is not unconstitutional. The provision serves the salutary purpose of protecting innocent public servants from unwarranted and mala fide prosecution. The Court emphasized that the possibility of abuse does not render a provision unconstitutional if it is otherwise valid. The need to prosecute and punish the corrupt does not justify denying protection to honest public servants.

2. Requirement of Sanction for Prosecuting Public Servants:
Section 19 of the PC Act mandates that no court shall take cognizance of offenses under specified sections of the Act without prior sanction from the appropriate authority. This requirement aims to protect public servants from irresponsible, frivolous, and vexatious proceedings for acts performed in good faith. The Court reaffirmed the necessity of this provision, emphasizing that it ensures public servants can perform their duties without fear of malicious prosecution.

3. Misuse of the Provision for Sanction:
The petition argued that the discretion to grant sanction has been misused to protect dishonest and corrupt politicians and government officials. The Court acknowledged instances where incumbents were indicted but not prosecuted due to the absence of sanction. However, the Court noted that the provision for sanction is intended to protect public servants and should not be misused to shield the corrupt. The Court cited previous judgments, including Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. and Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr., to highlight the importance of timely and unbiased decision-making in granting sanctions.

4. Timeliness and Procedure for Granting Sanction:
The Court reiterated the need for timely decisions on sanction requests. It referred to guidelines and previous judgments that emphasize a three-month time limit for granting sanction, extendable by one month if consultation with legal authorities is required. The Court stressed that delays in granting sanctions thwart the purpose of a speedy trial and undermine public confidence in the judicial process. The competent authority must decide on sanction requests urgently, ensuring the rule of law and justice are upheld.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that while the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act is not unconstitutional, it is imperative that the competent authority decides on sanction requests expeditiously. A balance must be maintained between protecting public servants from mala fide prosecution and upholding probity in public life by prosecuting those against whom there is prima facie evidence of corruption. No further directions were deemed necessary, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

← Previous Next →