The Supreme Court has held that a decision refusing sanction to prosecute a public servant cannot later be reversed on the same material merely because of external pressure or political intervention. The Court dismissed a Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Rajasthan and upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision quashing the sanction granted against Dr. Dev Kant Meena.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that the process of granting sanction must remain free from outside influence and cannot become an exercise driven by political considerations.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from an Anti-Corruption Bureau case alleging that Dr. Dev Kant Meena, a government doctor, demanded money from the relative of a patient in connection with a knee surgery. Following a trap operation, cash was allegedly recovered from a drawer at his official residence, leading investigators to seek sanction for his prosecution.
However, after examining the material collected during the investigation, senior officers in the Department of Personnel concluded that the available evidence did not clearly establish an illegal demand. They noted that recorded conversations appeared to relate to the cost of medical implants rather than any demand for a bribe. The department also expressed doubts regarding the recovery of money from a locked drawer and found several circumstances surrounding the trap to be suspicious. Based on these findings, sanction for prosecution was initially declined.
Why the Matter Reached the Court
The controversy began after the Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister's Office sent the file back for reconsideration despite there being no fresh evidence. The communication stated that the recovery of money and the handwash test justified prosecution.
The Department of Personnel once again reviewed the material and maintained its earlier view that no clear demand was established and that doubts surrounding the trap remained unresolved. Even so, the Chief Secretary eventually approved granting sanction. Dr. Meena challenged this decision before the Rajasthan High Court, which set aside the sanction. The State then approached the Supreme Court.
Court's Observations
The Supreme Court found no justification for reviewing the earlier refusal when no new material had emerged during the intervening period.
Opening its judgment with a literary reference, the Bench remarked:
"The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in 'Hamlet's Soliloquy': 'to be or not to be'... If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed."
The Court explained that when the competent authority itself has serious doubts regarding the evidence, prosecution should not ordinarily be permitted.
The Bench observed:
"When there are two views possible... the view exonerating the officer should be taken," particularly because a criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Referring to earlier Supreme Court precedents, the judges reiterated that a sanction order cannot be reviewed merely because another authority holds a different opinion. Reconsideration is permissible only if fresh material becomes available and the sanctioning authority independently applies its mind.
The Court further emphasized that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act exists to protect honest public servants from false, frivolous, or unsupported prosecutions while not shielding those against whom sufficient material exists.
Supreme Court's Decision
Finding no error in the Rajasthan High Court's reasoning, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's Special Leave Petition. The Bench held that the later sanction order had been influenced by interference from the Chief Minister's Office despite the absence of any fresh evidence warranting reconsideration.
The Court also criticized the unnecessary litigation that followed, observing that the State should have accepted the High Court's judgment instead of pursuing the matter further.
It directed the State to pay costs of ₹50,000 each before the High Court and the Supreme Court within two months.
Case Details
Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dev Kant Meena
Case Number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 2951 of 2026
Judge: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Decision Date: 23 July 2026
