Apex Court upholds High Court order quashing prosecution sanction, imposes ₹1 lakh cost on Rajasthan Government for reviewing sanction without fresh evidence
The Supreme Court has granted relief to a government doctor accused of demanding a bribe for a patient’s knee surgery, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to quash the State Government’s sanction for his prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
In a significant judgment, the Apex Court also came down heavily on the Rajasthan Government for reversing its earlier decision without any fresh evidence and imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the State. The Bench observed that the change in stance appeared to have been made under the influence of “political dictate” and amounted to unnecessary harassment of a public servant.
The Bench of Justices J.V. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran reiterated that sanction for prosecution is intended to protect honest public servants from frivolous and vexatious criminal proceedings, while ensuring that genuine cases are prosecuted.
“The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in Hamlet’s Soliloquy—’to be or not to be’. If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed,” the Court observed.
The case arose from allegations that the government doctor demanded ₹5,000 to ₹6,000 from a patient’s relative for knee surgery in 2017. During a trap operation, ₹2,000 was allegedly recovered from a drawer at the doctor’s official residence.
However, when the State Government initially examined the matter, senior officials concluded that the available evidence did not clearly establish either a demand for or acceptance of a bribe. The authorities found that the recorded telephone conversation merely reflected the cost of steel plates required for the surgery, which the patient was required to bear as they were not covered under the applicable government scheme.
Despite initially refusing sanction for prosecution, the matter was later reopened after the Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office sought reconsideration, citing the recovery of money during the trap. The Chief Secretary subsequently recommended granting sanction, leading to the doctor’s challenge before the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed the sanction order.
The State Government challenged the High Court’s decision before the Supreme Court.
Dismissing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court observed that where two views are reasonably possible, particularly in criminal proceedings against a public servant, the view favouring the accused should prevail unless there is sufficient material indicating a reasonable likelihood of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court further noted that even the administrative authorities had expressed serious doubts regarding the alleged demand for a bribe and the circumstances of the trap and recovery. In such a situation, there was no justification for granting prosecution sanction.
The Bench also observed that the facts of the case indicated possible victimisation of the doctor and emphasised that sanction for prosecution should be based on the realistic possibility of securing a conviction rather than mere suspicion or probabilities.
Referring to earlier judgments, including Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, the Court reiterated that sanction is intended to prevent false, frivolous and vexatious prosecution and acts as a safeguard for innocent public servants rather than a shield for guilty officials.
The Court also relied on its earlier decisions in State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar, and State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, holding that a sanctioning authority cannot review or reconsider an earlier decision refusing prosecution merely because of a change in opinion. Such reconsideration is permissible only if fresh material, unavailable during the earlier decision-making process, subsequently comes on record.
Finding that no fresh evidence had emerged in the present case, the Bench held that the review of the earlier refusal to grant sanction suffered from non-application of mind and was legally unsustainable.
The Supreme Court further remarked that the State should have accepted the Rajasthan High Court’s decision instead of pursuing further litigation, particularly when the sanction order was “patently illegal and blatantly tainted.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the State’s Special Leave Petition and directed the Rajasthan Government to pay ₹50,000 each before the High Court and the Supreme Court, totalling ₹1 lakh, within two months. The Bench also granted liberty to the doctor to approach the Court again if the costs are not paid within the stipulated period.
