The Delhi High Court has clarified when prior sanction is required to prosecute a former public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, following the 2018 amendment.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja held that the amended provision protects former public servants and those holding a different office, but the protection does not reopen cases where the court had already taken cognizance before July 26, 2018.
The judgment was delivered on August 6, 2026, in a reference made by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Background Of The Case
The reference arose from questions concerning the effect of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, particularly the changes made to Section 19.
Before the amendment, the Supreme Court had held in several cases that sanction was generally linked to the public servant's status and office at the time the court took cognizance. The 2018 amendment expanded the definition of “public servant” for this purpose to include a person who had left the office in which the alleged act was committed, as well as one holding a different office.
The High Court noted that the amended provision extended this protection even to former public servants.
Court's Observation
The Bench first clarified that Section 19 operates differently from the general rule that a court takes cognizance of an offence rather than an offender.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Dilawar Singh, the Court observed that Section 19 requires sanction for prosecution of the specific public servant. “No cognizance of an offence under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 ... can be taken except with a previous sanction” for such public servant, the Bench held.
The Court further held that the relevant date for applying the amended Section 19 is July 26, 2018, when the amendment came into force.
Decision
The Bench gave the amendment a limited retrospective effect. It held that the protection can apply even where the alleged offence occurred before July 26, 2018.
However, if the court had already taken cognizance before that date, the proceedings would not be reopened and no fresh sanction would be required.
The Court expressly held that the sanction requirement applies only where cognizance had not been taken as of July 26, 2018, or is taken thereafter.
The Court accordingly answered the questions referred to it and left the Special Judge to apply the legal principles to the facts of the underlying case.
Case Details:
Case Title: Court On Its Own Motion v. StateCase Number: CRL.REF. 1/2019; CNR No. DLHC010082512019
Judge: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Decision Date: August 6, 2026
-300x169.webp)
