Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. Legislative reforms for expeditious grant of sanction for prosecution started with the enactment of the CVC Act, whereunder Parliament has expressly empowered CVC under Section 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act to review the progress of applications for sanction.

26. While exercising the powers under Section 8(1)(f), CVC has been issuing guidelines and instructions to various departments for expeditious disposal of requests for sanction. Despite these legislative changes and administrative guidelines, delay in granting sanctions continued. In Subramanian Swamy case, this Court suggested that Parliament may consider prescribing clear time-limits for the grant of sanction and to provide for a deemed sanction by the end of the period if no decision is taken. (SCC p. 103, para 81) "81. In my view, Parliament should consider the constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the rule of law wherein "due process of law" has been read into by 21 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070778-DB CRA-D-5-2023 -22- Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:070778-DB introducing a time-limit in Section 19 of the PC Act, 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. Parliament may, in my opinion, consider the following guidelines:

29. The sanctioning authority must bear in mind that public confidence in the maintenance of the rule of law, which is fundamental in the administration of justice, is at stake here. By causing delay in considering the request for sanction, the sanctioning authority stultifies judicial scrutiny, thereby vitiating the process of determination of the allegations against the corrupt official Subramanian Swamy. Delays in prosecuting the corrupt breeds a culture of impunity and leads to systemic resignation to the existence of corruption in public life. Such inaction is fraught with the risk of making future generations getting accustomed to corruption as a way of life. Viewed in this context, the duty to take an early decision inheres in the power vested in the appointing authority to grant or not to grant sanction. In fact, the Statement of Objects and Reasons for the 2018 Amendment of Section 19 clearly explain the purpose as under:

"31. If it is mandatory for the sanctioning authority to decide in a time-bound manner, the consequence of non- compliance with the mandatory period must be examined.
24 of 28 Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:070778-DB CRA-D-5-2023 -25- Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:070778-DB This is a critical question having no easy answer. In Subramanian Swamy, this Court suggested that Parliament may consider providing deemed sanction if a decision is not taken within the prescribed period. The appellant herein contends the very opposite that the criminal proceedings must be quashed if the decision is not taken within the prescribed period.