Indian Supreme Court gives fillip to anti-corruption fight

The Supreme Court today held that it was the Constitutional right of a citizen to file a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act and said that the competent authority should take a decision on giving sanction for prosecution of a public servant within four months.

While doing so, it set aside the Delhi High Court judgement refusing to give direction to the Prime Minister on the request for sanction of prosecution against then Union Communications Minister A Raja in the 2G spectrum case.

 

A two-judge bench of the court held that if the sanction were not given within four months then it would be deemed to have been granted.

 

The bench, comprising justices A K Ganguly and G S Singhvi, held that Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, who had sought sanction for prosecution of Raja, had the locus standi to seek it.

 

It said sanction should be granted within a time frame and the competent authority shall take action in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the apex court in the Vineet Narain case of 1996.

 

In a separate judgement, Justice Ganguly agreed with Justice Singvi and said sanction would be deemed to be granted if the competent authority failed to take a decision within a period of four months.

 

"We deem it proper to observe that in future every Competent Authority shall take appropriate action on the representation made by a citizen for sanction of the prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the direction contained in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226 and the guidelines framed by the CVC (Central Vigilance Commissioner," Justice Singhvi said.

 

The judges said that, having regard to the very nature of the office held by the Prime Minister (respondent no.1), it may not be expected of him to personally look into the minute details of each and every matter and he, having regard to the burden of his very onerous office, has to depend on the officers advising him. 

 

"At the same time it may be noted that in the course of submission, the appellant, who argued in person, did not ever allege any malafide or lack of good faith against the respondent No.1. The delay which had taken place in the office of the respondent No.1 is unfortunate but it has not even been alleged by the appellant that there was any deliberate action on the part of the respondent No.1 in causing the delay. The position of respondent No.1 in our democratic polity seems to have been summed up in the words of Shakespeare 'Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown'," Justice Ganguly said.

 

Justice Ganguly went on to say that corruption in the country not only posed a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, but it also threatened the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. 

File photo of Subramanian Swamy

"The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.  That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it," he said.

 

"Time and again this Court has expressed its dismay and shock at the ever growing tentacles of corruption in our society but even then situations have not improved much," he remarked.

 

Justice Ganguly said the right of private citizen to file a complaint against a corrupt public servant must be equated with his right to access the Court in order to set the criminal law in motion against a corrupt public official.  

 

"This right of access, a Constitutional right should not be burdened with unreasonable fetters. When a private citizen approaches a court of law against a corrupt public servant who is highly placed, what is at stake is not only a vindication of personal grievance of that citizen but also the question of bringing orderliness in society and maintaining equal balance in the rule of law," he said.

 

"Keeping those principles in mind, as we must, if we look at Section 19 of the P.C. Act which bars a Court from taking cognizance of cases of corruption against a public servant under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act, unless the Central or the State Government, as the case may be, has accorded sanction, virtually imposes fetters on private citizens and also on prosecutors from approaching Court against corrupt public servants. 

<p>Advertisement</p> ADVERTISEMENT

"These protections are not available to other citizens. Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution.  However, the said protection against malicious prosecution which was extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials. These provisions being exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to provisions of protective discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption. 

 

"Therefore, in every case where an application is made to an appropriate authority for grant of prosecution in connection with an offence under P.C. Act it is the bounden duty of such authority to apply its mind urgently to the situation and decide the issue without being influenced by any extraneous consideration. In doing so, the authority must make a conscious effort to ensure the rule of law and cause of justice is advanced.  In considering the question of granting or refusing such sanction, the authority is answerable to law and law alone. 

<p>Advertisement</p> ADVERTISEMENT

"Therefore, the requirement to take the decision with a reasonable dispatch is of the essence in such a situation. Delay in granting sanction proposal thwarts a very valid social purpose, namely, the purpose of a speedy trial with the requirement to bring the culprit to book. Therefore, in this case the right of the sanctioning authority, while either sanctioning or refusing to grant sanction, is coupled with a duty. The sanctioning authority must bear in mind that what is at stake is the public confidence in the maintenance of rule of law which is

fundamental in the administration of justice," he said.

 

Justice Ganguly said Parliament could consider the following guidelines:

 

a)All proposals for sanction placed before any Sanctioning Authority, empowered to grant

sanction for the prosecution of a public servant under section 19 of the P.C. Act must be decided within a period of three months of the receipt of the proposal by the concerned authority.

 

b)Where consultation is required with the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General of the State, as the case may be, and the same is not possible within the three months mentioned in clause (a) above, an extension of one month period may be allowed, but the request for consultation is to be sent in writing within the three months mentioned in (a) above. A copy of the said request will be sent to the prosecuting agency or the private complainant to intimate them about the extension of the time limit. 

 

c)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 chargesheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the aforementioned time limit.