The Supreme Court recently observed that an order denying sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be reviewed by the appropriate authority unless fresh material emerges which was not available at the earlier instance.

"A mere change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for review or reconsideration of an earlier order, refusing to grant sanction.”, observed a bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, while affirming the Rajasthan High Court's decision to quash the reviewed sanction order granted against the Respondent Doctor.

The Court cited various precedents, including State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92 where it was held that "when a decision is taken to decline sanction by the appropriate authority, reviewing such order on the very same material would not be appropriate or permissible."

The case stemmed from a 2017 ACB trap against Respondent-Dr. Dev Kant Meena, who was accused of demanding a bribe from a patient's relative for a knee surgery. During the trap, ₹2,000 was allegedly recovered from a locked drawer at his official residence.

After examining the record, the Department of Personnel,in March 2018, found no clear evidence of demand or acceptance of a bribe and recommended refusal of sanction, which was approved by the Principal Secretary and Chief Secretary. However, the matter was later reopened at the instance of the Chief Minister's Office in May 2018 despite no fresh material, leading to the grant of sanction.

The Rajasthan High Court quashed the sanction, holding the reconsideration process to be legally unsustainable, prompting the State's appeal before the Supreme Court.

Dismissing the State's appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Chandran criticized the role played by the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister in reopening a matter in which sanction had already been declined by the competent authorities.

The Court noted that when the recommendation against granting sanction was approved by the Principal Secretary and thereafter accepted by the Chief Secretary, resulting in refusal of sanction, then it was impermissible for the Joint Secy. to the CM to have expressed a different opinion on the same facts and directed reconsideration, despite lacking any fresh evidence.

“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 Court said, stressing that the Respondent was unnecessarily troubled by the CM's office by reviewing the earlier order denying sanction despite a lack of any fresh material to that effect.

“The facts clearly indicated non application of mind at the second instance, where the same materials were available for consideration, which had persuaded the officer to deny sanction at the earlier instance.”, the Court said, emphasizing that “…when there are two views possible, especially in proceeding with a criminal prosecution against a public servant, the view exonerating the officer should be taken, especially since the criminal prosecution can lead to a finding of guilt only if it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt.”

Resultantly, the appeal was dismissed with a cost imposed on the State to deposit Rs. 50,000/- each before the High Court and the Supreme Court.

“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.”, the Court ordered.

Cause Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Dev Kant Meena

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 738

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

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.