Supreme Court Deprecates Political Pressure Dictating Prosecution Sanction, Raps Rajasthan Govt
The Supreme Court recently criticised the State of Rajasthan for changing its stance, under the influence of political dictate, on granting prosecution sanction which was earlier declined. It remarked that prosecution sanctions are meant to safeguard innocent public servants from frivolous harassment and can't resemble the dilemma in Hamlet's Soliloquy: to be or not to be.
"The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in 'Hamlet's Soliloquy': 'to be or not to be', though expressed in a different context. If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed."
The observations were made in a case concerning an accusation of bribery against a government doctor. Initially, the State declined sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However, under "extraneous considerations", the State changed its position and granted sanction for prosecution.
A bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwal and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed serious remarks on the blatant display of "political dictate" by the State by unnecessarily dragging a public servant to the Court.
Dismissing the State's appeal against the Rajasthan High Court's judgment quashing the sanction, the Court imposed an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000 on the State of Rajasthan.
It ordered: "We cannot but observe that the petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily to the High Court by the review, prompted by the office of the CM. The State at least should have rested content, when the highest Constitutional Court within its boundaries, interfered with a patently illegal and blatantly tainted order of sanction. We hence dismiss the Special Leave Petition with the above observations and further direction to the State to pay cost quantified at Rs.50,000/- each, before the High Court and this Court."
To briefly state, the doctor, Dev Kant Meena, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court seeking to restrain the government from taking any disciplinary action against him. He stated that the sanction for prosecution was initially declined, but under undue coercion, it was granted.
The charges rose from a complaint filed against the doctor alleging that he demanded Rs. 5000-Rs.6000 for the knee surgery when the patient's cost was to be covered by a beneficial medical scheme. It was alleged that after the surgery, Rs. 2000 was recovered from the table drawer at the doctor's official residence where he was arrested pursuant to a trap laid.
Subsequently, the prosecution sanction was sought, but the Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan, in March 2018, declined, stating that the call transcripts didn't establish that the doctor received a bribe. It was stated that the doctor had merely stated that the patient was not eligible for the scheme and therefore he would have to bear the cost himself.
On the recovery of Rs. 2000, the Secretary stated that the lock of the drawer was broken open and the money recovered was found to be "highly suspicious". It was specifically noted that news reports were circulated that members of a political party had set a trap for the doctor, which was found to be a mere publicity stunt to gain popularity. Further, it was stated that neither the patient nor his relatives had made a complaint, and the person who made the complaint claiming to be the relative wasn't verified.
Subsequently, the Joint Secretary's proposal was accepted by the Chief Secretary of Rajasthan.
However, the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister, in May 2018, referred the matter for reconsideration, asserting that the money recovered from the drawer table clearly proved that the doctor accepted a bribe, which was confirmed by a handwash.
The doctor approached the Rajasthan High Court, which ordered that there was no occasion for the respondents to reconsider sanction on the same material. Again, the Department of Personnel considered the issue of sanction and declined it. It was specifically noted that surgery was completed on the previous day, the day after which the bride was claimed to have been made.
On reference to the Chief Secretary, it was opined that approval of sanction may be considered.
Relying on State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen(2010), the Supreme Court reiterated that Section 19 of the 1988 Act doesn't make any reference to the reconsideration or review of the matter by the sanctioning authority once the said power is exercised.
In this case, the Principal Secretary declined to grant sanction against a Drug Inspector on finding that the complaint was frivolous. But later reviewed her decision based on the opinion of the Vigilance Department that there is sufficient evidence, which was a decision arrived at on extraneous dictates.
The Court held that the approval of sanction was vitiated because there was no fresh material and that the review was motivated because a different opinion was expressed by the Vigilance Department.
It also referred to the decision of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v State of Gujarat(1997), wherein the Supreme Court cautioned the sanctioning authority from taking action under any pressure or external force swaying its decision. It said that the object of Section 19 is to ensure that a public servant doesn't have to suffer harassment on false, frivolous allegations.
Relying on these two decisions, the bench noted: "We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and we deprecate such instances bringing out interference leading to unnecessary harassment of public officers discharging public duties, which is sought to be avoided by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act."
Case Details: State of Rajasthan & Ors v Dev Kant Meena|Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2951 of 2026
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 738
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Rajpal, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Siddharth Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR Mr. Awnish Maithani, Adv.Ms. Shruti Singh, Adv. Mr. Yusuf Tariq, Adv.