Revisiting the Significance of Sanctions for Suing Public Servants

A Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Judges B.V. Nagarathna and Shri Satish Chandra Sharma passed a judgment dated February 25,2025 in Suneeti Toteja vs State of U.P. & Anr. SLP (Crl.) No. 6898 of 2023 wherein the Court determined that the notion of a deemed sanction does not exist under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

The current appeal before the Supreme Court originates from the Order issued on November 16, 2022, by the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court concerning a Petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court rejected the Petition seeking to quash the Summoning Order dated July 12, 2022, as well as Chargesheet No. 1/2022 dated 02.07.2022. Then this Special Leave Petition was filed in Supreme Court.

Law laid down under Section 197 CrPC
No court is capable of taking cases against Judges and Public Servants in discharge of his official duty except with prior sanction from the competent authority.

Facts

Dr. Manisha Narayan, Respondent No.2 had filed FIR No. 610/ 2018 dated 30.10.2018 stating that during her tenure with Food Safety and Standards Authority of India as Associate Director in New Delhi, she was sexually harassed by Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta, the Enforcement Director therein. Internal enquiry took place at Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The findings of the internal inquiry found Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta guilty of those offences charged against him.
The Appellant’s name was found neither in FIR nor in the Internal Complaint Committee proceedings. Her name surfaced during the statement given by the Complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 14.10.2020. The departmental enquiry took place at FSSAI which found Dr. S.S Ghonkrorkta is to be considered culpable for the offenses attributed to him. The name of the Appellant was not mentioned in either the First Information Report (FIR) or the proceedings of the Internal Complaint Committee. It was only during the statement provided by the Complainant under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on October 14, 2020, that her name emerged.
In her capacity as the Presiding Officer of the ICC, she filed a short counter affidavit dated 16.01.2017 on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7 therein before the Tribunal. In the aforementioned affidavit, the Appellant primarily supported the conclusions drawn in the enquiry report presented by the ICC. Nevertheless, the Complainant subsequently claimed that she had not given the Appellant permission to submit the counter affidavit on her behalf, asserting that this counter affidavit was filed without her awareness or consent.

Issues

The chargesheet indicated that approval for the prosecution of accused No. 4 and others was requested under Section 197 of the CrPC. However, as the sanction was not obtained within the designated timeframe, it was considered that the sanction for prosecution had been effectively received. So, the issue arose: Can the sanction for prosecution be deemed to have been received?

Decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Appellant was acting in her official duty is sufficient to hold that a prior sanction from the department was in fact necessary before the Magistrate taking cognizance against her.
The learned Magistrate erred in acknowledging the offence against the Appellant without the requisite sanction for prosecution from the appropriate authority. Additionally, the High Court failed to take into account that the necessary sanction for prosecution, as stipulated under Section 197 of the CrPC, was not provided by the competent authority, which ultimately denied the sanction concerning the allegations made against the Appellant.

Judgments Referred

In Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889, it was held that – “the time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution has to be strictly adhered to.”
In Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, it was held that – “if no decision is taken by the sanctioning authority, then at the end of the extended time limit, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution.”

Conclusion

There is no concept of deemed sanction in Section 197 CrPC. However, Section 218 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 says that is any person is Judge, Magistrate or Public Servant and he cannot be removed without the sanction of Government, then The Government has to take a decision within one hundred and twenty days from the date of receipt of request for sanction. In case it fails to do so, sanction shall be deemed to have been accorded by such Government. Exceptions to Section 218 of BNSS are offences committed under Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, offences of rape, sexual intercourse by person in authority, sexual harassment, voyeurism, stalking, trafficking of persons, public servant disobeying direction of law and punishment for non-treatment of the victim.

TRISHA SAXENA
SENIOR LEGAL ASSOCIATE
THE INDIAN LAWYER AND ALLIED SERVICES

Please log on to our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest video, titled; “Laws For Women In India” can be viewed at the link below: