Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.4 He stated that the non-response from the Home Secretary's office ought to be construed as a case of "implied" or "deemed" sanction. In support reliance was placed on the judgment of Supreme Court in Subramanian Swami v. Manmohan Singh & Ors4 wherein it was suggested, by way of recommendation to Parliament, that a failure to decide on sanction within a stipulated timeframe should result in a deemed sanction, thereby enabling the prosecuting agency or private complainant to proceed with filing the chargesheet or complaint within 15 days of such lapse.

20.1 The Petitioner argues that the absence of a response should be interpreted as deemed sanction. In support of this argument, the Petitioner relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy (Supra), wherein the Court suggested that Parliament should consider implementing a Rule whereby, if no decision on sanction is taken within the stipulated time, sanction should be deemed to have been granted, enabling the prosecuting agency or private complainant to proceed with filing the charge sheet or complaint within 15 days of the expiration of the time limit. 20.2 However, this Court notes that, in law as it stands today, there is no concept of "deemed sanction" under Section 197 Cr.P.C. The observations in the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner is a recommendation to Parliament, which remains a recommendation and has not resulted in a legislative amendment. This has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Anr10 wherein the Court noted the judgment Subramanian Swamy (supra) and held that there is no concept of "deemed sanction" under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as per law as it stands today. The relevant extract of the said judgement reads as under:-

31. Similarly, learned counsel for the complainant had placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Subramanian Swamy 2025 INSC 267 to lend credence to the argument of deemed sanction for prosecution. However, even the said judgment does not in any manner lay down the notion of deemed sanction. First, the said judgment dealt primarily with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sanction for prosecution under that Act. Secondly G.S. Singhvi, J. while penning his separate but concurring opinion in the said judgment, had given some guidelines for the consideration of the Parliament, one of which is to the effect that at the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the chargesheet/ complaint in the court to commence prosecution within fifteen days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit. However, such a proposition has not yet been statutorily incorporated by the Parliament and in such a scenario, this Court cannot read such a mandate into the statute when it does not exist.