No 'deemed sanction', sanction for prosecution of public servants must: SC

New Delhi: The Supreme Court said that a prior sanction for the prosecution of public servants for their acts committed in discharge of duties is a condition precedent to the cognisance of the cases against them by the courts. It clarified that the concept of 'deemed sanction' has yet not been incorporated in the statute.

A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma rejected a contention for deemed sanction over delay or refusal by the competent authority to grant sanction.

"Section 197 of CrPC does not envisage a concept of deemed sanction," the bench said.

In its February 25, 2025 judgment, the court quashed a charge sheet, summoning order and other consequent steps taken against Suneeti Toteja, then FSSAI director due to refusal of sanction.

The Uttar Pradesh government relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain Vs Union of India, (1998) to contend that the time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution has to be strictly adhered to. "Since no sanction was granted by the competent authority within the stipulated time period, the state was correct in proceeding on the basis of deemed sanction."

Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for complainant, cited Subramanian Swamy Vs Manmohan Singh (2012), to contend 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.

Referring to Vineet Narain case, the bench pointed out, it did not deal with Section 197 CrPC and rather it dealt with the investigation powers and procedures of CBI and the Central Vigilance Commission.

"While it did mention that the time limits for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly adhered to, there is no observation to the effect that lack of grant of sanction for prosecution within the time limit would amount to deemed sanction for prosecution," the bench said.

In Subramanian Swamy case, the bench said, even the said judgment does not in any manner lay down the notion of deemed sanction. The said judgment dealt primarily with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the sanction for prosecution under that Act.

Secondly, the bench pointed out Justice G S Singhvi (since retired) in his separate but concurring opinion had given some guidelines for the consideration of the Parliament, one of which is to the effect that at the end of the extended period of time limit, if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted to the proposal for prosecution, and the prosecuting agency or the private complainant will proceed to file the charge sheet or complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the time limit.

"However, such a proposition has not yet been statutorily incorporated by the Parliament and in such a scenario, this court cannot read such a mandate into the statute when it does not exist," the bench said.

The court allowed the plea by the petitioner against the Allahabad High Court's order dismissing her plea to quash the proceedings, summoning order and the charge sheet.

The police here filed a charge sheet against the appellant on the basis of a statement by an associate director, who alleged that the petitioner as presiding officer of Internal Complaints Committee under the POSH Act to probe her complaint of sexual harassment was involved in threatening and pressurising her to withdraw the case.

On a letter by the UP police for sanction, the Bureau of India Standards found that the appellant was in no way related to the allegations made in the charge sheet and thus, it was not a fit case for grant of sanction for prosecution.