Apex Court upholds High Court order, says sanction for prosecution cannot be reviewed without fresh evidence and imposes ₹1 lakh cost on Rajasthan Government.
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted relief to a government doctor accused of demanding a bribe for performing knee surgery, upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s decision that had quashed the State Government’s sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Apex Court also strongly criticised the Rajasthan Government for reversing its earlier decision without any fresh evidence, observing that the sanction appeared to have been influenced by “political dictate.” The Court imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on the State for pursuing what it termed an unjustified prosecution.
The case arose from allegations that the doctor demanded ₹5,000 to ₹6,000 from the relative of a patient for a knee surgery. Acting on the complaint, investigating officials laid a trap on March 29, 2017, during which ₹2,000 was allegedly recovered from a drawer at the doctor’s official residence.
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. Officials observed that the recorded telephone conversation merely reflected the doctor’s explanation that steel plates required for the surgery would cost ₹5,000 to ₹6,000 because the patient was not covered under a government welfare scheme.
Accordingly, the State initially declined to grant sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the matter was later reopened after the Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office sought reconsideration, arguing that the recovery of money from the doctor’s drawer justified prosecution. Subsequently, the Chief Secretary recommended granting sanction, prompting the doctor to challenge the decision before the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed the sanction.
While dismissing the State’s appeal, the Supreme Court reiterated that sanction for prosecution is intended to protect honest public servants from frivolous, malicious and unsubstantiated criminal proceedings.
The Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran observed that where two possible views exist, authorities should adopt the interpretation favourable to the public servant, particularly because a criminal conviction requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court further noted that if the administrative authority itself had expressed doubts regarding the alleged demand for a bribe, the trap proceedings and recovery of money, there was no justification for subsequently granting sanction based on the same material.
Reaffirming settled legal principles, the Supreme Court held that a sanctioning authority cannot review or reverse an earlier refusal to prosecute unless fresh evidence emerges during the investigation. A mere change of opinion based on the same material, the Court said, is legally impermissible.
The Bench relied on earlier Supreme Court judgments, including Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar, and State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, which recognise sanction as a safeguard against harassment of innocent public servants rather than a shield for guilty officials.
Holding that the present case involved unnecessary victimisation of the doctor, the Court found no reason to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court’s order. It observed that the review of the sanction was prompted by the Chief Minister’s Office without any fresh material and amounted to an abuse of the legal process.
Dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court directed the State to pay costs of ₹50,000 before the High Court and ₹50,000 before the Supreme Court within two months. The Court also clarified that failure to comply would entitle the doctor to seek further directions from the Apex Court.
