Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Exhibiting the deep concern with regard to the corruption in public life, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh And Another 2012(1) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 201 : 2012(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 720, has ruled that "Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti- corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."

14. Having regard to the legal position, material on record and rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, to me, the answer must obviously be in the negative in this context.

15. At the very outset, it cannot possibly be denied that Hon'ble Apex Court in a line of judgments has held that the very object of sanction to prosecute, is to protect the eligible public servant from malicious and vexatious prosecution. The intention is not to put a wall around public servants, who act mala fidely. The policy is not to set an official above the common law and if he commits a common offence, then, he cannot avail peculiar privilege. The reliance in this respect can be placed on the law laid down (Para 29) by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy's case (supra).

19. Here, to my mind, the first sanctioning authority slipped into a deep legal error in this respect. It is not a matter of dispute that the authority exercises the statutory jurisdiction under Section 19(1)(c) of the P.C.Act, while granting or refusal to grant sanction to prosecute the accused. In that eventuality, it ought to have discussed the material & evidence brought on record and then to record the valid grounds, for forming a definite opinion that no ground to grant sanction is made out. Such orders must be informed by reasons, fair, clear and must be structured by rational and relevant material/evidence on record, which are totally lacking in the present case. On the contrary, the first authority did not adhere to and just ignored the oral as well as the documentary evidence with impunity and declined the sanction to prosecute the petitioner on speculative and non-existent grounds. No reason whatsoever, much less cogent, has been depicted in the order (Annexure P10) and it declined the sanction on frivolous, foreign/alien grounds and in a very casual manner, in order to help the accused in a corruption case involving crores of rupees, for the reasons best known to it. Above-all, the 1st sanctioning authority has totally ignored the Bench mark set out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy's case (supra) while declining the sanction to prosecute the petitioner. Under these compelling circumstances, I cannot help/escape observing that the order (Annexure P10) is void, non-speaking, non-est and cannot possibly be termed to be a legal order. Therefore, the question of any review of such void and illegal order, did not arise at all under the present set of circumstances, as (contrary) argued on behalf of the petitioner. To me, it will not debar/preclude the CBI to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the statutory provisions of the CVC Act.

25. Likewise, the CVC is a statutory body created under the CVC Act of 2003. Section 8 of it defines the functions and powers of the CVC, inter-alia, to exercise the control and superintendence over the functioning of CBI, as it relates to the investigation of offences alleged to have been committed under the P.C.Act. It has the statutory power to monitor the progress of investigations conducted by the CBI and review the progress of applications pending with the competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the P.C.Act. Section 11 further empowers the Commission to hold inquiries and as per Section 12, the Commission shall be deemed to be a civil court and every proceeding before it shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding. Not only that, the power and function of old Vigilance Commission were legally saved and assigned to existing Vigilance Commission under Section 24 of the said Act. Moreover, in such a situation, where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it, as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy's case (supra). Therefore, it cannot possibly be saith by any stretch of imagination that the statutory Central Vigilance Commission has no legal power to advice the competent authority, to grant the sanction to prosecute the petitioner, as (contrary) urged on his behalf.