Summary
In a CBI disproportionate-assets case against a central government official, the DoPT consulted the Central Vigilance Commission. It granted sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act about one year and ten months after the request. The trial court discharged the accused, holding that the DoPT had acted under the CVC's dictation, and the High Court restored the case. The Supreme Court held that the Cr.P.C., the DSPE Act, the PC Act, the CVC Act and the Lokpal Act form one integrated scheme. Seeking and weighing the CVC's advice is neither dictation nor an irrelevant consideration, provided the authority decides independently, as it did here. The three-month period (plus one month for legal consultation) in the 2018 provisos to Section 19 is mandatory. Breach does not quash the prosecution but makes the authority accountable through writ remedies and CVC review.
Issues
- Whether a sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is vitiated as given under dictation because the appointing authority consulted and considered the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission.
- Whether the period of three months, extendable by one month for legal consultation, in the provisos to Section 19(1) inserted in 2018 is mandatory or directory.
- What follows when sanction is not decided within that period, and whether criminal proceedings may be quashed for the delay.
Provisions considered
- Section 19(1) and provisos (2018), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988The duty to 'endeavour' to decide within three months, extendable once by one month for recorded reasons, is a compelling statutory obligation. Parliament intended the decision within four months at most. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28, 29, 38)
- Section 8(1)(e), (f) and (g), Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003The CVC advises the Government on matters referred to it and reviews pending sanction applications. Its advice is a valuable but non-binding input, and it must enforce accountability for delays in sanction. (¶¶ 17, 18, 24, 36, 37, 38)
- Section 197, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Read with Section 19 of the PC Act: sanction requires relevant material before the authority and an independent application of mind, and it is subject to ordinary judicial review of executive action, including for unreasonable delay. (¶¶ 17, 21, 22)
Held
- Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan was decided before the CVC Act and the later amendments. The anti-corruption statutes now form an integrated scheme in which the CVC is the expert advisory body. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- An appointing authority that calls for, refers to and considers the CVC's opinion does not act under dictation or on irrelevant material, so long as the final decision is its own. Here the DoPT's queries only sought information, and its sanction order of 24.07.2017 was an independent decision on the material before it. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Sanction protects public servants from harassment but is no shield for corruption. As an executive power, it must be exercised within a reasonable time, and the period under the 2018 provisos to Section 19 is mandatory, not directory. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29)
- Missing the period does not by itself quash the prosecution, given the public interest in prosecuting corruption and the complainant's lack of another remedy. Nor does it result in deemed sanction. The answer is accountability: after four months any aggrieved party may seek writ directions, and the CVC must inquire and take corrective action. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38)
- Delay had not been raised in the courts below and there was no material on record to assess the authority's accountability. The appellant was left to pursue appropriate remedies on the principles laid down. (¶¶ 39, 40)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The High Court's order restoring the prosecution was upheld, and the appellant was left free to seek remedies on the delay in sanction in line with the principles laid down. Parties to bear their own costs.