Kerala High Court Seeks Centre's Response To PIL For Guidelines On Grant Of Sanction, 'Deemed Sanction' For Prosecuting Corrupt Public Servants

The petitioner referred to Sections 19 and 29A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as the Apex Court's directions in Vineet Narain & others v. Union of India and CBI v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal to state that the Central Government has a duty to frame rules.

One of the provisos to Section 19 states that the competent authority, upon receipt of a proposal requiring sanction to prosecute a public servant, shall endeavour to convey its decision on the proposal within 3 months. Another proviso empowers the Central government to prescribe guidelines regarding prosecution sanction.

Section 29A empowers the Centre to make rules for carrying out the provisions of the Act, including guidelines of sanction of prosecution.

Moreover, it was stated that the sanctioning authorities already have a duty to accord sanction within the time prescribed in the Act and if not, the same amounts to “deemed sanction”, which is a concept recognized under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Taking note of the afore averments, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. granted 2 weeks' time to the respondents, including the Union and CBI, to respond to the PIL.

The case stands posted to August 19 (Wednesday).

The PIL highlights three cases where there was inordinate delay in granting sanction to prosecute corrupt officials.

One of the cases was the alleged corruption by Greater Cochin Development Authority (GCDA) officials during 2013-2015 in selling public property at a price lower than the market value to private persons. It was pointed out that sanction was granted only in 2025 and the delay would have the effect of fading of witnesses' memory, possibility of loss of evidence as well as likelihood of the trial being undermined.

Another case was the 'Palarivattom Flyover Scam' where the Vigilance found a loss of around Rs. 13.45 crores to the exchequer due to faulty construction of the flyover. It is stated that while the case has been pending accord of sanction, one of the accused, former PWD Minister passed away.

“Despite the completion of the investigation into the notorious Palarivattom flyover scam years ago, the Vigilance Department has been unable to file a charge sheet in the case before the court. The delay on the part of the competent authority in granting permission to proceed with the prosecution is cited as the reason. The Vigilance had completed the investigation in connection with the case back in December 2022, following which the ED also conducted a probe. As two IAS officers are also involved in the case, obtaining permission from the competent authority of the Central Government is necessary to proceed with the prosecution and for the said reason, a final report could not be filed so far,” it is stated.

The plea also refers to the Cashew Corp Corruption case, where sanction was only recently granted pursuant to multiple directions by the High Court.

A reference is also made to three circulars by the Central Vigilance Commission and one circular by the State Home Department. The first three circulars dated 12.05.2005 and 25.05.2015, guidelines have been prescribed on the subject of sanction and to check delay in the grant of the same.

The State's circular is dated 16.12.2025 and it contains guidelines, which outlines the procedural steps to be followed for the requirement of prior government sanction for courts to take cognizance of offences committed by Judges, Magistrates, or Public Servants in the discharge of their official duties under Section 218(1) BNSS.

The PIL thus prays for a direction to the Union, Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the CBI and the State Vigilance Department Additional Chief Secretary to strictly adhere to the time limit of 3 months for granting prosecution sanction or to proceed for prosecution with “deemed sanction” when this period gets over.

One of the reliefs prayed for is a direction to the State and the Vigilance Department to adhere to the State's circular if prosecution sanction under Section 218 BNSS is required.

Additionally, a prayer is sought for a direction to Union and Ministry of Home Affairs to prescribe guidelines as per the proviso in Section 19.

As an interim relief, a direction is sought to direct 4 and 7 to furnish the total number of prosecution sanction requests pending beyond the 3-month time limit prescribed.

Case No: W.P.(PIL) No.153 of 2026

Case Title: C.T. Muneer v. Union of India & Others

Counsel for the petitioner: Ajit G, Anjarlekar, G.P. Shinod, Govind Padmanaabhan, Atul Mathews, Gayathri S.B.

Counsel for the respondents: B. Rajesh (Kottayam) - Sr. Panel Counsel, Sarath T.S. - Sr. Government Pleader, Tom Antony, Sreelal N. Warrier

Click to Read/Download Interim Order