Supreme Court Refers Public Servant Sanction Issue in Corruption Case to Larger Bench.


21 April 2025 Corruption >> Criminal Law  

In B.S Yeddiyurappa v/s A. Alam Pasha & Others., the Supreme Court has decided to refer a crucial legal question concerning the necessity of prior sanction for investigating public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), to a larger bench. This decision came during the hearing of a special leave petition filed against a High Court order that had restored a private complaint against a former Chief Minister of Karnataka and other government officials.

The case originated from a 2012 complaint alleging offences under the PC Act against the petitioner, who served as Chief Minister from 2008 to 2011. The complaint was initially referred to the Lokayukta police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), leading to the registration of an FIR. However, the High Court subsequently quashed the FIR and proceedings, relying on a Supreme Court judgment in Anil Kumar vs. M.K. Aiyappa, which held that a Magistrate cannot order investigation against a public servant under Section 156(3) CrPC without prior sanction.


 

 

Later, a second, almost identical complaint was filed, arguing that sanction was no longer required as the accused had ceased to hold office. The trial court dismissed this second complaint citing the lack of sanction. The High Court, however, allowed a petition against this dismissal, restoring the complaint and directing proceedings against all accused except one for whom sanction was denied.

The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court, raising several contentions, including the maintainability of the second complaint and the necessity of sanction under the amended Section 19 and newly inserted Section 17A of the PC Act. Arguments were also made regarding the applicability of the Aiyappa judgment and the requirement of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for IPC offences, even for former public servants. The petitioner's counsel also pointed to a split verdict in the Supreme Court regarding the retrospective applicability of Section 17A, a matter already referred to a larger bench in Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another.

The respondents countered, arguing that the Aiyappa decision contradicted a three-judge bench ruling in R.R. Chari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and the established principle that a Magistrate does not take cognizance while ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, thus negating the need for sanction at that stage. They also argued that Section 17A does not bar a court from directing investigation and would not apply to court-ordered investigations.

After extensive hearings, the Supreme Court had reserved its judgment, framing several key questions for consideration, including the relevant considerations for granting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, the difference in considerations between the appropriate authority and a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and the stage at which sanction is required under Section 19 of the PC Act in private complaints. The Court also intended to examine the interplay between Section 17A and the amended Section 19 and their potential retrospective application.

However, while preparing the judgment, the Court noted a recent order by a coordinate bench in Shamin Khan vs. Debashish Chakrabarty & Ors. This order highlighted that the very question of whether a Magistrate applies their mind (takes cognizance) while directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, which is central to the applicability of sanction at that stage, is already under reference to a larger bench in Manju Surana vs. Sunil Arora & Ors.

Maintaining judicial discipline and propriety, the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to tag the present petitions with the already referred matter in Manju Surana. Recognizing the frequent recurrence and relevance of this legal issue, the Court directed the registry to place these matters before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders, seeking an earlier decision by the larger bench. This move underscores the significance of clarifying the legal position on the requirement of sanction for investigating public servants in corruption cases, particularly at the stage of a Magistrate's order under Section 156(3) CrPC.   


Section 17, Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988  

Section 19, Prevention of Corruption Act - 1988  

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988  

Section 156., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973