Remove prior sanctions privilege

The Supreme Court’s observation that the prior sanction mandated by law for prosecution of government servants should not be treated as a shield to protect corrupt officials is common sense. But the sense was not so strong for a number of government officials from Andhra Pradesh who have been fighting credible charges of official misconduct and corruption for 16 years, armed with Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code. It is claimed that the Section was introduced in the CrPC with the good intention of protecting government officials from frivolous and malicious litigation. It laid down that no court in the country can entertain a case against a public servant, unless written permission for prosecution is received from his or her superiors, over anything done as part of his or her official duties. The 1973 law, which was modelled on a colonial law, has been among the most misused and misinterpreted legal provisions in the country.

The Andhra Pradesh employees had come to the Supreme Court to escape punishment for cheating, misappropriation of money and fabrication of records.
What was claimed was relief on technical grounds, on the basis of the mandate of Section 197, from prosecution for serious offences. The claim, in effect, meant that they were entitled to protection from prosecution mandated by the Section even when they indulged in corruption and misconduct. This is an absurd claim and is the best example of a law being used for purposes which are exactly opposite of what it was meant for. Many officials have escaped punishment for serious offences with the help of the mandate for prior permission. Only two months ago, former Gujarat DG of police P C Pande was discharged in the Sohrabuddin fake encounter case for want of sanction under Section 197. There are other cases too. 

It is high time that this provision is removed from the statute book. It creates impunity and disregard for law in the minds of officials. Countries like the US and the UK, which have a robust system of rule of law, do not have this mischievous provision in their laws. Experience shows that it is a major hurdle in the fight against corruption and lawless conduct of officials. Many genuine cases of corruption and misconduct have collapsed for want of sanction on the part of the Central government, state governors and other authorities concerned in government departments. Courts have repeatedly pointed this out. Public servants are accountable to the people, and therefore, such a law is unnecessary. Vexatious litigation can be discouraged by many other means like penalties.