The Supreme Court has clarified in a landmark judgment that the failure of a sanctioning authority to provide sanction within the stipulated time does not result in a 'deemed sanction' under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. The Court quashed a criminal case against a public servant, stressing that the legal framework does not permit an automatic grant of sanction due to delay.
"Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction," the bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma stated.
Case Background
The case involved a public servant facing prosecution without prior sanction. The prosecution and complainant cited Vineet Narain vs. Union of India (AIR 1998 SC 889) and Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh [(2012) 3 SCC 64] to argue that if sanction was not granted in time, it should be deemed approved. However, the Court dismissed this claim, explaining that the cited cases did not establish such a principle under Section 197 CrPC.
In differentiating the Vineet Narain case, the Court clarified that the ruling pertained to investigative powers of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
"While it did mention that the time limits for granting sanction must be strictly followed, it did not establish that a failure to provide sanction within the time frame results in 'deemed sanction,'" the Court noted.
Regarding Subramanian Swamy’s case, the Court stated that Justice G.S. Singhvi’s concurring opinion only suggested guidelines for Parliament’s consideration.
"Such a proposition has not yet been statutorily incorporated by Parliament, and in such a scenario, this Court cannot read such a mandate into the statute when it does not exist," the ruling emphasized.
While the CrPC does not recognize deemed sanction, the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) introduces this provision. Section 218(1) states:
"Provided further that such Government shall take a decision within a period of one hundred and twenty days from the date of the receipt of the request for sanction, and in case it fails to do so, the sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded by such Government."
The judgment was delivered in the case Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. & Another. The appellant, a Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) employee, faced prosecution based on an FIR related to alleged misconduct in an official inquiry. Her name was not in the initial FIR but surfaced later in the complainant’s Section 164 CrPC statement.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Clears Former Drug Company Director of Charges for Substandard Drugs Seized Post-Resignation
The chargesheet included multiple IPC sections, and the prosecution argued that since sanction was not granted within the stipulated time, it should be deemed approved. Rejecting this argument, the Court ruled that the appellant could not be prosecuted without explicit sanction from BIS.
"The necessary sanction not having been granted has vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding against the appellant," the Court held.
The ruling establishes that Section 197 CrPC does not recognize deemed sanction due to delay. It underscores the necessity of explicit prior sanction before prosecuting public servants and differentiates CrPC from BNSS 2023, which now provides for deemed sanction if no decision is made within 120 days. The Court emphasized that cases like Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy do not support deemed sanction under Section 197 CrPC and reaffirmed that courts must follow statutory procedures before initiating criminal proceedings against government employees.
This ruling is a crucial precedent ensuring strict adherence to procedural law in cases against public servants. As India transitions from CrPC to BNSS, legal professionals and policymakers must carefully analyze how these changes impact public servant accountability and judicial oversight.
Case Title: SUNEETI TOTEJA VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER
