2022 (10) TMI 1267 - SC - Indian Laws

Grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - period of three months, extendable by one more month for legal consultation for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not - criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within the mandatory period or not. Whether the order of sanction is illegal due to non-application of mind and acting as per dictation if the appointing authority, the DoPT refers and considers the opinion and advise of the CVC? - HELD THAT - Sanction for prosecution of an employee of the Union under the PC Act would involve invocation of specific provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the PC Act, and the CVC Act, all of which constitute a unified scheme. The Central Vigilance Commission, constituted under the CVC Act is specifically entrusted with the duty and function of providing expert advice on the subject. It may be necessary for the appointing authority to call for and seek the opinion of the CVC before it takes any decision on the request for sanction for prosecution. The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration. The opinion of the CVC is only advisory - The issue is, therefore, answered by holding that there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed for the delay in the issuance of the sanction order? - HELD THAT - 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. This principle is anyway inbuilt in our legal structure, and Constitutional Courts review the legality and proprietary of delayed exercise of power quite frequently - 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. Viewed in this context, the duty to take an early decision inheres in the power vested in the appointing authority to grant or not to grant sanction. Upon expiry of the three months and the additional one-month period, the aggrieved party, be it the complainant, Accused or victim, would be entitled to approach the concerned writ court. They are entitled to seek appropriate remedies, including directions for action on the request for sanction and for the corrective measure on accountability that the sanctioning authority bears. This is especially crucial if the non-grant of sanction is withheld without reason, resulting in the stifling of a genuine case of corruption. Simultaneously, the CVC shall enquire into the matter in the exercise of its powers Under Section 8(1)(e) and (f) and take such corrective action as it is empowered under the CVC Act. Thus, the period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. The consequence of non-compliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason. The competent authority shall be Accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC Under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act. As there is no material placed on record to examine the accountability of the appointing authority for not deciding the request for sanction within time, it is left to the Appellant to seek appropriate remedy based on principles. Conclusion - i) There is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant. ii) The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The Supreme Court of India considered two primary legal issues in this judgment:

• Whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is rendered illegal if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for its decision.
• Whether the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation, as per the 2018 Amendment through the 2nd Proviso to Section 19(1) of the PC Act) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory, and whether criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within this period.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Legality of Sanction Order Due to Consultation with CVC

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court examined the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, and relevant precedents, including the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, which emphasized the need for independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the statutory framework allows the appointing authority to seek advice from the CVC, and this does not amount to acting under dictation. The opinion of the CVC is advisory and serves as a valuable input in the decision-making process.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court reviewed the correspondence between the CBI, DoPT, and CVC, concluding that the DoPT's decision was independent and based on the material before it.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court found that the DoPT's inquiry was to solicit further information, and its sanction order was an independent decision, not influenced by external pressure.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued that the DoPT acted under dictation by the CVC, while the respondent maintained that the DoPT applied its independent mind. The court sided with the respondent, emphasizing the advisory nature of the CVC's opinion.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that there was no illegality in the DoPT considering the CVC's opinion, and the sanction order was valid.

Issue 2: Delay in Issuance of Sanction Order

• Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referred to the 2018 Amendment to the PC Act, which mandates a three-month period for deciding on sanction requests, extendable by one month for legal consultation. It also considered precedents like Vineet Narain v. Union of India and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, which emphasized timely sanction decisions.
• Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court held that the period for granting sanction is mandatory, but non-compliance does not automatically lead to quashing criminal proceedings. Instead, accountability for delay should be enforced.
• Key Evidence and Findings: The court noted the delay of one year and ten months in granting sanction in this case but found no material on record to examine the accountability of the appointing authority.
• Application of Law to Facts: The court acknowledged the delay but emphasized the need for accountability rather than quashing proceedings.
• Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant argued for quashing proceedings due to delay, while the respondent contended that the period was directory. The court found a middle ground, emphasizing accountability.
• Conclusions: The court concluded that the sanction period is mandatory, and accountability should be enforced for delays, but this does not warrant quashing proceedings.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "The issue is, therefore, answered by holding that there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the Central Vigilance Commission before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant."
• Core Principles Established: The consultation with the CVC is permissible and does not vitiate the sanction order. The period for granting sanction is mandatory, and accountability for delays must be enforced.
• Final Determinations on Each Issue: The sanction order was found to be valid, and the delay in granting sanction does not automatically quash criminal proceedings, but accountability measures should be pursued.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, allowing the appellant to seek remedies based on the principles laid down in the judgment. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.