Is There 'Deemed Sanction' To Prosecute If Decision Delayed? Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether sanction to prosecute a public servant can be “deemed” to have been granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a stipulated time. The Court stayed a direction issued by the Madras High Court which had provided for such deemed sanction.A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra...
The Supreme Court referred to a larger Bench the question whether sanction to prosecute a public servant can be “deemed” to have been granted if the competent authority fails to take a decision within a stipulated time. The Court stayed a direction issued by the Madras High Court which had provided for such deemed sanction.
A Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Tamil Nadu against a November 22, 2024 order of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
High Court's Direction On Deemed Sanction
The High Court had declined a plea for quashing of criminal proceedings but issued guidelines concerning grant of sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 217 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Noting delays in filing the final report under Section 193 of the BNSS due to late grant of sanction under Section 217, the High Court directed that all competent authorities, including the Governor, must decide on sanction to prosecute within one month from receipt of the order, where the period fixed by the Supreme Court or statute had lapsed. It further directed that if no decision was taken within that period, sanction would be deemed to have been granted for the proposed prosecution. The High Court issued the directions relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) 3 SCC 64.
Senior Advocate V. Giri, appearing for the State, relied on the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Suneeti Toteja v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where a coordinate Bench of the Supreme Court had rejected the argument that sanction could be deemed to have been granted.
The Bench noted that in Suneeti Toteja, the Court had repelled submissions regarding deemed sanction and clarified that even the ruling in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh does not support such a proposition.
The Court observed that paragraph 81 of Subramanian Swamy, relied upon by the High Court, was part of the concurring opinion authored by Justice A. K. Ganguly. The lead judgment delivered by Justice G. S. Singhvi, the presiding judge, did not refer to or discuss the concept of deemed sanction.
At the same time, the Bench acknowledged that litigants have repeatedly complained of lethargy or apathy on the part of competent authorities in granting sanction for prosecution. It also noted that a Bench presided over by the Chief Justice of India is currently seized of similar grievances.
Considering the recurring nature of the issue and the data regarding pendency of matters awaiting sanction, the Court held that the matter requires authoritative pronouncement by a larger Bench.
Accordingly, the papers have been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders.
In the meantime, the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the paragraph of the High Court's order, which provided for deemed sanction in case of inaction by the competent authority.
Case : State v. M. Muneer Ahmed and another
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 167