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.

Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Grant or Refusal of Sanction – Reconsideration / Review of Order Refusing Sanction – Power of Review – Scope and Standard of Evaluation - No Express Power of Review - Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 does not contain any express provision regarding review or reconsideration of the matter by the sanctioning authority once the power to grant or refuse sanction has already been exercised – i. Review on Same Material Impermissible - A mere change of opinion per se on the exact same material is completely impermissible and cannot form the ground for reviewing an earlier order that refused to grant sanction – ii. When Review is Permissible - A review of an order refusing sanction is permissible only when fresh materials are collected by the investigating agency, which were not available at the earlier instance, provided there is a proper application of mind to such new materials – iii. External Pressure and Extraneous Dictates Vitiates Sanction - Sanction for prosecution is a statutory safeguard designed to protect innocent public servants from frivolous, vexatious, and unsubstantiated allegations - The decision-making process under Section 19 cannot be influenced by political dictates, extraneous considerations, or pressure exerted by higher authorities (such as the Chief Minister's office); iv. Standard of Evaluation by Sanctioning Authority - If the administrative/sanctioning authority itself expresses reasonable doubts and suspicions regarding the demand of bribe, the trap laid, or the recovery of money, sanction ought to be declined - Where two views are reasonably possible on the materials produced, the view exonerating the officer should be taken. [Paras 7 - 12]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197 – Role of Sanctioning Authority - The sanctioning authority must independently apply its mind to the materials placed before it without acting under external force, coercion, or political dictate - Granting sanction upon reconsideration on identical material especially under political pressure—vitiates the sanction order and amounts to an abuse of process. [Relied on Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 622; State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 14 SCC 527; Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2000) 9 SCC 53; State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 17 SCC 92; Paras 8-13]

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.