Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

From the impugned sanction orders, it would not be possible to conclude that the Competent Authority has not applied its mind prior to granting sanction. Merely because language of the impugned orders as also the draft submitted by the Investigating Agency seeking sanction were couched in identical terms can not made the basis of setting aside an order granting sanction.

Against the present scenario of rampant corruption in all spheres of life, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has sounded a word of caution. In the case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Manmohan Singh & another (2012) 3 Supreme Court cases 64, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while noticing that the requirement as regards seeking sanction in respect of public servants being in the nature of a protection against malicious prosecution has held that the same can not be permitted to become a shield to protect corrupt officials. It was held that such provisions in the nature of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 197 Cr.P.C. must be construed narrowly. In the case of Subramanian Swamy (Supra), it had been observed in the following terms:

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that prior to passing of the impugned orders granting sanction for prosecution, no opportunity of hearing had been granted to the petitioner. Even such contention is wholly misplaced. It has been held in a catena of judgments that the grant of sanction for prosecution is an administrative function. As such, there would be no requirement for the public servant concerned to be heard by the Competent Authority before a decision in the matter is taken. Such aspect of an opportunity of hearing to be granted to a public servant in matters for grant of sanction was also considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy (Supra) and it has been held in the following terms: