Prosecuting corrupt officials: Apex court sets norms for sanctioning authority

In a big boost to the anti-graft movement, the Supreme Court on Tuesday framed guidelines to ensure that the Government cleared all applications seeking sanction to prosecute ‘corrupt’ public servants in a time-bound manner.

It said the sanctioning authority had to decide (for grant or refusal) within three months on every application seeking such a sanction. One more month can be taken for the decision, but only to consult the Attorney General or the Solicitor General or the Advocate General of the State.

At the end of the extended period of time limit (four months), if no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted for prosecution, it said.

The court added that the prosecuting agency or private complainant could then “proceed to file the chargesheet/complaint in the court to commence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the time limit.”

It said Parliament should amend Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to ensure that the sanctioning authority takes a decision within this time limit.

The order was pronounced by a Bench comprising Mr Justice A.K Ganguly and Mr Justice G.S Singhvi. Mr Justice Ganguly broadly agreed with Mr Justice Singhvi but wrote a separate judgement specifying the guidelines.

The court observed that it was a citizen’s Constitutional right to file a complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act against a public servant.

The matter pertains to a petition filed by Janata Party President, Dr Subramanian Swamy, asking the court to direct the Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, to take a decision on his petition seeking sanction to prosecute the then Telecom Minister, Mr A Raja, in the 2G spectrum case, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. After Mr Raja resigned during pendency of the case, Dr Swamy wanted the court to frame guidelines for speedy justice in future cases.

The court set aside a Delhi High Court ruling and allowed Dr Swamy’s plea, and said he had the right to seek sanction from the Prime Minister to prosecute Mr Raja.

CLEAN CHIT TO PM

Earlier, the apex court had questioned the Prime Minister's "inaction and silence" for 16 months after having received Dr Swamy’s plea.

But, in this order, Mr Justice Singhvi said it was the “concerned officers in the PM’s office who kept the matter pending and then took the shelter of the fact that the CBI had registered the case and the investigation was pending.”

The judge observed that the officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and Justice, were duty bound to apprise the PM about seriousness of allegations and the apex court judgments so as to enable him to take appropriate decision.

The PM "is not expected to personally look into the minute details of each and every case placed before him and has to depend on his advisers and other officers. Unfortunately, those who were expected to give (him) proper advice ...failed to do so", Justice Singhvi said.

"We have no doubt that if the PM had been apprised of the true factual and legal position regarding the representation made by Dr Swamy, he would have surely taken appropriate decision and would not have allowed the matter to linger for a period of more than one year," the judge said.

CORRUPTION POSES DANGER

Meanwhile, in his separate judgement, Justice Ganguly observed that, "Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law."

He said the magnitude of corruption in public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic, adding that "where corruption begins all rights end."

Noting that "corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision", the judge said, adding that therefore, it is the court's duty that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.

However, the judge rued that though the apex court has expressed its dismay and shock several times at the ever growing tentacles of corruption in the society, the situation has not improved much.

126 PENDING REQUESTS

Justice Ganguly also highlighted that the Attorney General in the course of his submission in the case "fairly admitted before us" that out of the total 319 requests for sanction, in respect of 126 of such requests, sanction is awaited.

This means, in over a third of the cases of request for prosecution in corruption cases against public servants, sanctions have not been accorded, he said.

This scenario raises very important constitutional issues as well as some questions relating to interpretation of such sanctioning provision as well as the role that an independent judiciary has to play in maintaining rule of law and common man’s faith in the justice delivering system, the judge said.

Share

Tweet