MANZOOR ALI KHANversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

                    [2014] 7 S.C.R. 569


                   MANZOOR ALI KHAN                             A
                              v.
                 UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
            (Writ Petition (C) No. 305 of 2007)

                     AUGUST 06, 2014
                                                                B
   [T. S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

    PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988:

     s. 19 - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution - C
Writ petition seeking to declare the provision as
unconstitutional on the ground that the provision is being used
to protect dishonest and corrupt politicians and Government
officials ..:.. Direction sought for prosecution of all cases
registered and investigated under the provisions of the Act D
without sanction as required u/s 19 - Held: Requirement of
sanction uls 19 has salutary object of protecting an innocent
public servant against unwarranted and ma/a fide prosecution
- Mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground to declare a
provision, otherwise valid, to be unconsa.tutional - The E
exercise of power has to be regulated to effectuate the
purpose of Jaw - Requirement of sanction is not
unconstitutional - Competent authority has to take a decision
on the issue of sanction expeditiously - A fine balance has
to be maintained between need to protect a public servant F
against ma/a fide prosecution and the object of upholding the
probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against
whom prima facie material in support of allegation of
corruption exists -Therefore, no further directions are
necessary.                                                       G

    The instant writ petition was filed seeking to declare
s. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act)

                            569                                 H
   570      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A as unconstitutional and to direct prosecution of all cases
  registered and investigated under the provisions of the
  Act against politicians including M.L.As and M.Ps and the
  Government officials without sanction as required u/s 19
  of the Act. It was submitted that the provision was being
B used to protect dishonest and corrupt politicians and
  Government officials.

        The question for consideration before the Court was
   as to whether s.19 of th1e PC Act was unconstitutional and
c ,whether any further direction was called for in public
   interest and for enforc•~ment or fundamental rights.

         Disposing of the writ petition, the Court

       HELD: 1.1. Requirement of sanction u/s 19 of the
D Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has salutary object of
  protecting an innocent public servant against
  unwarranted and ma/a fide prosecution. Undoubtedly,
  there can be no tolerance to corruption which
  undermines core constitutional values of justice, equality,
E liberty and fraternity. At the same time, need to prosecute
  and punish the corrupt is no ground to deny protection
  to the honest. Mere p,ossibility of abuse cannot be a
  ground to declare a provision, otherwise valid, to be
  unconstitutional. The exercise of power has to be
F regulated to effectuate the purpose of law. [para 8) [577-
  A-C]

       1.2. The observations made in the case of
   Subramanian Swamy* fully cover the issues raised in the
G instant petition. Thus, while it is not possible to hold that
   the requirement of sanction is unconstitutional, the
 I
   competent authority has to take a decision on the issue
   of sanction. expeditiously. A fine balance has to be
   maintained between need to protect a public servant
H against ma/a fide prosecution and the object of
      MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA              571

upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the A
public servant against whom prima facie material in
support of allegation of corruption exists. In view of the ·
law laid down by this Court, no further directions are
necessary. [para 12-13] [587-G-H; 588-A-B]
                                                             B
    ·*Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr.,
(2012] 3 SCR 52 = (2012) 3 SCC 64 - relied on.

     Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 1996
(1) SCR 1053 = (1996) 2 SCC 199; and Vineet Narain& Ors. C
vs. Union of India & Anr., 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 = (1998)
1 SCC 226, Common Cause, a registered Society vs. Union
of India & Ors. 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 373 = (1996) 6 SCC
593, Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors. 1996 (8)
Suppl. SCR 651 = (1996) 6 SCC 599, M.C. Mehta (Taj D
Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (9) Suppl.
 SCR 683 = (2007) 1 SCC 110, Prakash Singh Badal & Anr.
vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197, = 2007
(1) SCC 1, Lalu Prasad @ Latu Prasad Yadav vs. State of
Bihar Thr. CBl(AHD) Patna 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 251=2007 E ·
(1) SCC 49 and K. Karunakaran vs. State of Kera/a 2006
(10) Suppl. SCR 283 =2007 (1) SCC 59, Shivajirao
Nilangekar Patil vs. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (Dr.) & Ors.
 1987 (1) SCR 4~8 = (1987) 1. SCC 227- referred to.

                   Case Law Reference :                       F
    1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 373       para 3       referred to
    1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 651       para 3      referred to
    2Q06 (9) Suppl. SCR 683       para 3      referred to     G
    2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197      para 3      referred to
    2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 251      para 3       referred to
    2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 283      para 3      referred to .
                                                              H
    572      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S,C.R.


A         1987 (1) SCR 458:               para 3           referred to

          1996 (1) SCR 1Ofi3              para 9           referred to

          1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595         para 10          referred to

B         2012 (3) SCR 52                 para 11          relied on

        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    305 of 2007

          Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
c
       P.S. Narasimha, ASG, Ashok Aggarwal, Ajay Bansal,
  Suryanarayaanaa Singh, Manjit Singh, S.S. Shamshery, AAG.,
  Dinesh Kumar Garg, Abhishek Garg, Dhananjay Garg, Deepak
  Misra, R. Nedumaran, Kiran Bharadwaj, Sushma Suri, Kuldip
D Singh, Devender Sinigh, Rakesh Kumar, Gaurav Yadav,
  Soumya Chakraborty, Anip Sachthey, Pragati Neekhra,
  Krishnanad Pandey, Amrendra Kr. Choubey, V.G. Pragasam,
  S.J. Aristotle, Prabu Ramasubramanian, Avijit Bhattacharjee,
  Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar, K. Enatoli Serna, Amit Kumar
E Singh, Ritu Raj Biswas, Hemantika Wahi, Preeti Bhardwaj, Giss
  Antony, Naresh K. Sharma, A. Mariaputham, Aruna Mathur,
  Yusuf (Arputham & Aruna & Co.), D.S. Mahra, D. Bharathi
  Reddy, S.S. Banthia, Sapam Biswajit Meiti, Khwairakpam
  Nobin Singh, Anil Shrivastav, Ritu Raj, Sanjay R. Hegde,
F Krishna Sarma, Riku Sarma, Navnit Kumar (Corporate Law
  Group), Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Ashutosh Kumar Bhatia, A.
  Subhashini, Kamlendra Mishra, P.V. Yogeswaran, Ravindra
  Keshavrao Adsure, T.V. George, Manish Kumar Saran, Milind
  Kumar, Ajay Pal, Jogy Scaria, Sunil Fernandes, Shankar
G Chillage, A.P. Mayee, Vivekta Singh, Nupur Choudhary, Kamal
  Mohan Gupta, B. Balaji, R. Rakesh Sharma, S. Anaand, Aarohi
  Bhalla, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Balasubramanian, K.V.
  Jagdishvaran, G. Indira, Sandeep Singh, Amit Sharma, D.
  Mahesh Babu for the appearing parties.
H
      MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                     573

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                       A

    ADARSH KUIVIAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition, by way of
public interest litigation, seeks direction to declare Section 19.
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act")
unconstitutional and to direct prosecution of all cases registered B
and investigated under the provisions of PC Act against the
politicians, M.L.As, M.Ps and Government officials, without
sanction as required under Section 19 of th~ PC Act.

      2. According to the averments in the writ petition, the        C
petitioner is a practising advocate in the State of Jammu &
Kashmir. In the said State, several Government officials have
been charged for corruption but in the absence of requisite
sanction, they could not be prosecuted. Referring to several
instances including those noticed by this Court in various
                                                                     0
orders, it is submitted that the provision for sanction as a
condition precedent for prosecution is being used by the
Government of India and the State Governments to protect
dishonest and corrupt politicians and Government officials. The
.discretion to grant sanction has been misused.
                                                                     E
     3. The petition refers to various orders of this Court where
incumbents were indicted but not prosecuted for want of
sanction. In Common Cause, a registered Society vs. Union
of India & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 593, Captain Satish Sharma,
the then Minister for Petroleum and Natural Gas was held to          F
have acted in arbitrary manner in allotting petrol pumps but since
sanction was refused, he could not be prosecuted. In Shiv
Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 599, Smt.
Shiela Kaul, the then Minister for Housing and Urban
Development, Government of India was indicted for making             G
arbitrary, ma/a fide and unconstitutional allotments but still she
could not be prosecuted. In M.C. Mehta (Taj Corridor Scam)
vs. Union of India & Ors., (2007) 1 SCC 110, Ms. Mayawati,
the then Chief Minister of U.P. and Shri Nasimuddin Siddiqui,
                                                                     H
    574      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 7 S.C.R..


A the then Minister for Environment, U.P. were indicted and
  allegations against them were noticed but they could not be
  prosecuted in the absence of sanction. It is further stated that
  in Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors.,
  2007 (1) SCC 1, La/u Prasad @ Latu Prasad Yadav vs. State
B of Bihar Thr. CBl(Af-10) Patna 2007 (1) SCC 49 and K.
  Karunakaran vs. State, of Kera/a 2007 (1) SCC 59, validity of
  requirement of sanction was not gone into on the ground of
  absence of challenge to its validity. In Shivajirao Nilangekar
  Patil vs. Mahesh Madhav Gosavi (Dr.) & Ors. (1987) 1 SCC
C 227, this Court noticed that there was a steady decline of public
  standards and morals. It was necessary to cleanse public life
  even before cleaning the physical atmosphere. The provision
  for sanction under the PC Act confers unguided and arbitrary
  discretion on the Government to grant or not to grant sanction
D to prosecute corrupt and dishonest politicians, M.Ps, M.L.As
  and Government officials.

        4. In response to the notice issued by this Court, affidavits
  have been filed by several State Governments and Union
E Territories but no counter affidavit has been filed by the Union
  of India. The stand taken in all the affidavits is almost identical.
  According to the said stand, the object of Section 19 of ttie PC
  Act is to protect public servants against irresponsible, frivolous
  and vexatious proceedings for acts performed in good faith in
F the discharge of their official duties and to protect them from
  unnecessary harassment of le'gal proceedings arising out of
  unfounded and baseless complaints. In the absence of such a
  provision, the public servant Jflay not be inclined to offer his/
  her free and frank opinion and may riot be able to function freely.
G
          5. We have heard Mr. D.K. Garg, learned counsel for the
    petitioner and Mr. P.S. Narasimha, teamed Additional Solicitor
    General for the Union of India and learned counsel for various
    States.
H
  MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                   575
I     [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ,if]
 6. Section 19 of the PC Act is as follows:-                  A

· "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.-
                           .'
  (1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence
  punishable under sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 alleged
J to have been committed by a public servant, except with
                                                          8
  the previous sanction,-

 (a) in the case of a person who is employed inconn'ection
 with the affairs of the Union and Is not removlfJle from
 his office save by or with the SE1nction of t(l.e r/;entral - C
 Government, of thpt Government;                ) (-......

 (b) in the case of a persori who is employed in 1~onnection
 with the affairs of a State and. is not removable/ram his
 office save by1_ or with the sanction of the State D
 Government, of that Government;

 (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority
 competent to remove him from his office.

 (2) Where.tor any reas~n whatsoever any doubt arises as E
 to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-
 section (1) should be given by the Central Government
 or the State Gpvernment or any other authority, such
 sanction shall be given by that Government or authority
 which would have been competent to remove the public F
 servant from Ms office at the time when the offence was
 alleged to have been, committed.

 (3) Notwithstanding anything 'contained in the Code of
 Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-                 G
 (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special
 Judge shall be reversed or altered ~y a court in appeal,
 confirmation or'revision on the grouna of the absence of,
                                                              H
    576       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A         or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction
          required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of
          that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned
          thereby;

          (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on
B
          the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the
          sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that
          such error, omission or irregularity has resuUed in a
          failure of justice;
c          (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on
           any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers
           of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed
          ·in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings.

D         (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the
          absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such
          sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice
          the court shall have regard to the fact whether the
          objection could and should have been raised at any
E         earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.-For the
          purposes of this section, -

          (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant
          sanction;
F
          (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference
          to any requiremEmt that the prosecution shall be at the
          instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a
          specified person or any requirement of a similar nature.":
G        7. Question for consideration is whether Section 19 of the
    PC Act is unconstitutional and whether any further direction is
    called for in public interest and for enforcement or fundamental
    rights?

H         8. The issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra.
      MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF lNDIA                    577
          [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
Requirement of sanction h;3S salutary object of protecting an A
innocent public servant against unwarranted and ma/a fide
prosecution. Undoubtedly, there can be no tolerance to
corruption which undermines core constitutional values of
justice, equality, liberty and fraternity. At the same time, need
to prosecute and punish the corrupt is no ground to deny B
protection to the honest. Mere possibility of abuse cannot be a
ground to declare a provision, otherwise valiQ, to be
unconstitutional. The exercise of power has to be regulated to
effectuate the purpose of law. The matter has already been dealt
with in various decisions of this Court.                          C

   ·9. In Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. (1996)
2 SCC 199, thi.s Court observed in paragraph 3 as follows:
                                                        •
     "3. The facts and circumstances of the present case do
   . indicate that it is of utmost public importance that this D
     matter is examined thoroughly by this Court to ensure that
     all government agencies, entrustiid with tne duty to
     discharge their functions and obliga.tions in accordance
     with law, do so, bearing in mind constantly the concept
     of equality enshrined in the Constitution and the basic · E
     tenet of rule of law: "Be you ever so high, the law is above
     you." Investigation into every accusation made against
     each· and every person on a reasonable basis,
     irrespective of the position and status of that person,
     must be conducted and completed expeditiously. This is F
     imperative to retain public confidence in the impartial
      working of the government agencies."

    10. Again in a _later order in the same case, i.e., Vineet
Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr., reported in (1998) 1 G
sec 226, it was observed as under:
     "55. These principles of public life are of general
     application in every democracy and one is expected to
     bear them in mind while scrutinising the conduct of every    H
      578        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2014] 7 S.C.R.

 A          holder of a public office. It is trite that the holders of public
             office~ are entrustedwith certain powers to be exercised
             in public interest alone and, therefore, the office is held
             by them in trust for the people. Any deviation from the
            path of rectitude by any of them amounts to a breach of
.B           trust and must be severely dealt with instead of being
.•
            pushed under the carpet. If the conduct amounts to an
             offence, it must be promptly investigated and the offender
             against whom a prima facie case is made out should be
             prosecuted expeditiously so that the majesty of law is
 c           upheld and the rule of law vindicated. It is the duty of the
            judiciary to enforce the rule of law and, therefore, to guard
             against erosion of the rule of law.

             56. The adverse impact ·of lack of probity 'in public life
 0           leading to a high d13gree of. corruption is manifold. It also
             has adverse effect on foreign investment and funding
            .from the· international Monetary Fund and the World
             Bank who have warned that future aid to underdeveloped
             countries may be subject to the requisite steps being
 E           taken to eradicate corruption, which prevents international
             aid from reaching those for whom it is meant. Increasing 1
             corr_uption has led to investigative journalism which is of
             value to a free society.· The need to highlight corruptiot
             in public life through the medium of public interest
 F           litigation invoking judicial review may be frequent in India '
             but is not unknown in other countries: R. v. Secy. of'State
             for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, 1995 (1) WLR
             386. .

 G.


            58. ........................ .

            15. Time-limit of three months. for grant of sanction for
 H
      MANZOOR ALI.KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                     579
          [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
              .       .           .•    '
    prosecution must b.e strictly adhered to. However,               A
    additional time of one month -may be allowed where
    consultation.
                  is requ/red with
                                 ; .
                                     .fhe Attorney General
                                                        ' (AG)
    or any other law officer in the A G's office."

           a
     11. In recent judgment of this Court· in Subramanian B
Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr., (2012) 3 SCC 64, the
que~tion fol'- consideration was whether a private citizen has
locus to prosecute a public servant and to obtain sanction and ·
how an application for sanction was to be dealt with. It was held
that any application for;sanction sought even by a private citizen c
must be looked into expeditiously and decided as per the
observations of this Court in Vineet Narain case (supra) and
guidelines framed by the CVC which were circulated vide Office
Order No. 31/5/05 dated 12.05.2005. The relevant clauses have
been quoted in the said judgment. In paragraphs 30, 33, 49, D
50 of the leading judgment, it was observed:

     "30. While dealing with the issue relating to maintainability
    of a private complaint, the Constitution Bench observed:
     (A.R. Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Anr.
                                                                      E
     (1984) 2 sec 500, para 6)
                            '
     "6. It is a we/1-recognised ·principfe of criminal
    jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the criminal law
    into motion except where the statute enacting or creating
     an offence indicates to the contrary. The s~heme of the F
     Code of Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and
    independent agencies for 'taking crimif}al offences to
     court. Even for the most serious offence of murder, it was
     not disputed that a private .Complaint can, not only be
     filed but can. be entertained and proceeded with"' G
     according to law. Locus standi of the complainant is a
     concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save and ·
                         .
                                                                ..
                                                           / . ( ·''·
     except that where the statute creating an offence provides ·
     for the eligibility of the complainant, by necessary
     implication the general principle gets excluded by such .. H
     580    SUPREME COURT' REPORTS                   [2014) 7 S.C.R.


A       statutory provision. Numerous statutory provisions, can
        be referred to in support of this legal position such as (i)
        Section 187-A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (ii) Section
        97 of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 (iii) Section 6 of the
        Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 (iv) Section 271
B       and Section 279 of t,he Income Tax Act, 1961 (v) Section
        61 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (vi)
        St?ction 621 of the Companies Act, 1956 and (vii) Section
        77 of the Electricity (Supply) Act, .1948. This list is only
        illustrative and not E1xhaustive .• While Section 190 of the
c       Code of Criminal Procedure permits anyone to approach
        the Magistrate with ,3 complaint, it does not prescribe any
        qualification the complainant is required to fulfil to be
       .~ligible to file a complaint. But where an eligibility criterion
       for a complainant is contemplated specific provisions
D       have been made such as to be found in Sections 195 to
         199 CrPC. These specific provisions clearly indicate that
        in the absence of <':lny such statutory provision, a locus
        standi of a complainant is a concept foreign to criminal
       jurisprudence. In other words, the principle that anyone
E       can set or put the criminal law in motion remains intact
        unless contra-indicated by a statutory provision. This
        general principle of nearly universal application i's
        founded on a policy that an offence i.e. an act or
        omissiOn made punishable by any law for the time being
        in force ... is not merely an offence committed in relation
        to the person who suffers harm but is also an offence
        against society. Tl'le society for its orderly and peaceful
        development is interested in the punishment of the
        offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious offences is
G       undertaken in t~§' name of the State representing the
        people which would exclude any element of private
        vendetta or ven9eance. If such is the public policy
        underlying penal statutes, who brings an act or omission
        made punishable ~y law to the notice of the authority
,H
      .
   MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF. INDIA
       [ADARSH KUMAR GO.EL, J.]
                                                        581

 competent to deal with it, is immaterial and irrelevant        A
 unless the statute indicates to the contrary. Punishment
 of the offen~r in the interest of the society being one of
I the objects behind penal statutes enacted for larger good
[of the society, right· to initiate proceedings cann0t be
  whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by putting it into   B
  a straitjacket formula of locus standi unknown to criminal
 jurisprudence, save and except specific statutory
  exception. To hold that such an exception exists that a
  private complaint tor offences of corruption committed by
  public servant is not maintainable, the court would require   C
  an unambiguous statutory provision and a tangled web
·of argument for drawing·a far-fetched implication, cannot
  be a substitute for an express statutory provision."

                                      (emphasis supplied). D

33. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Constitution
Bench in Antulay case, it must be held that the appellant
has the right to file a complaint for prosecution of
Respondent 2 in respect of the offences allegedly               E
committed by him under the 1988. Act.
                          '
  49. cv9, after taking note of the judgment of the Punjab
  and Haryana High Court in Jagjit Singh v. State of
. Punjab, State of Bihar v. P. P. Sharma, Supt. of Police
. (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary, framed guidelines which            F
  were circulated vide Office Order No. 3115105 dated 12-
  5-2005. The relevant clauses of the guidelines are
. extracted below:

  "2 (i) Grant of sanction is an administrative act. The        G
  purpose is to protect the public servant from harassment
  by frivolous or vexatious prosecution and not to shield the
  co"upt. The question of giving opportunity to the public
1
  servant at that stage does not arise. The sa,nctioning
                                                                H
    582       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014) 7 S.C.R.

A         authority has only to see whether the facts would prima
          facie constitute the offence.

          (ii) The competent authority cannot embark upon an
          inquiry to judge thE~ truth of the allegations on the basis
B         of representation which may be filed by the accused
          person before the sanctioning authority, by asking the 10
          to offer his comments or to further investigate the matter
          in the light of representation made by the accused
          person or by othetwise holding a parallel investigation!
c         enquiry by calling f'or the record/report of his department.

          *     *                      *

          (vii) However, if in any case, the sanctioning authority
          after consideration of the entire material placed before
0         it, entertains any doubt on any point the competent
          authority may specify the doubt with sufficient particulars
          and may request the authority who has sought sanction
          to clear the doubt. But that would be only to clear the
          doubt in order that the authority may apply its mind·
E         properly, and not for the purpose of considering the
          representations of the accused which may be filed while.
          the matter is pending sanction.                             I
          (viii) If the sanctioning authority seeks the comments of
F         the 10 while the matter is pending before it for sanction,
          it will almost be impossible for the sanctioning authority
          to adhere to the time-limit allowed by the Supreme Court
          in Vineet Narain case."

G         50. The aforementioned guidelines are in conformity with ,
          the law laid down by this Court that while considering the
          issue regarding grant or refusal of sanction, the only thing
          which the competent authority is required to see isl
          whether the material placed by the complainant or the
H         investigating agency prima facie discloses commission
   MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                     583
       [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
   of an offence. The competent authority cannot undertake       A
  la detailed inquiry to decide whether or not the allegations
. I
   made against the public seNant are true."

 In concurring judgment, it was further observed:

 "68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a B
 grave danger to the concept of constitutional
 governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the
 Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude
 of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the C
 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- D
 corruption Jaw 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 : E
 accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the
 one which seeks to perpetuate it.

 70. The learned Attorney General in the course of his
 submission fairly admitted before us that out of the total
 319 requests for sanction, in respect of 126 of such            F
 requests, sanction is awaited. Therefore, in more than
 one-third cases of request for prosecution in corruption
 cases against public seNants, sanctions have not been
 accorded. The aforesaid scenario raises very important
 constitutional issues as well as some questions relating        G
 to interpretation of such sanctioning provision and also
 the role that an independent judiciary has to play in
,maintaining the Rule of Law and common man's faith in
 the justice-delivering system. Both the Rule of Law and
                                                                 H
    584       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A         equality before law are cardinal questions (sic principles)
          in our constitutional laws as also in international law and
          in this context the, role of the judiciary is very vital. In his
          famous treatise on Administrative Law, Prof. Wade while
          elaborating the concept of the Rule of Law referred to the
B         opinion of Lord Griffiths which runs as follows:

          " ... the judiciary accepts a responsibility for the
          maintenance of the rule of law that embraces a
          willingness to oversee executive action and to refuse to
c         countenance behaviour that threatens either basic
          human rights or the rule of law." [See R. v. Horseferry
          Road Magistrates' Court, exp Bennett, AC at p. 62 A.]

          I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid principle.

D         74. Keeping those principles in mind, as we must, if we
          look at Section 19 of the PC 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
E         may be, has accorded sanction, virtually imposes fettf?rs
          on private citizens and also on prosecutors from
          approaching court against corrupt public servants. These
          protections are not available to other citizens. Public
          servants are treated as a special class of persons
F         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 pfosecution which was extended in
          public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt
G         officials. These provisions being exceptions to the
          equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to the
          provisions of prote,ctive discrimination and these
          protections must be construed very narrowly. These
          procedural provisions relating to ·sanction must be
H
  MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                    585
      [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
construed in such a manner as to advance the causes              A
of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed
to escalation of corruption.

75. Therefore, in every case where an application is made
to an appropriate authority for grant of prosecution in          8
connection with an offence under the PC 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         c
 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.
 Therefore, the requirement to take the decision with a
 reasonable dispatch is of the essence in such a situation.      0
 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    E
 with a duty.

  76. The sanctioning authority must bear in mind that what
  is at stake is the public confidence in the maintenance
  of the Rule of Law which is fundamental in the
                                                                 F
  administration of justice. Delay in granting such sanction
  has spoilt many valid prosecutions and is adversely
  viewed in public mind that in the name of considering a
  prayer for sanction, a protection is given to a corrupt
, public official as a quid pro quo for services rendered by     G
  the public official in the past or may be in the future and
  the sanctioning authority and t~e corrupt officials were ar
   are partners in the same misdeeds. I may hasten to add
  that this may not be the factual position in this (sic case)
 •but the general demoralising effect of such a popular          H
    586      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 7 S.C.R.

A         perception is profound and pernicious.

          77. By causing delay in considering the request for
       sanction, the sanctioning authority stultifies judicial
      scrutiny and determination of the allegations against
B     corrupt official and thus the legitimacy of the judicial
      institutions is eroded. It, thus, deprives a citizen of his
      legitimate and fundamental right to get justice by setting
      the criminal law in motion and thereby frustrates his right
      to access judicial remedy which is a constitutionally
c     protected right. In this connection, if we look at Section
      19 of the PC Act, we find that no time-limit is mentioned
      therein. This has virtually armed the sanctioning authority
      with unbridled power which has often resulted in protecting
      the guilty and perpetuating criminality and injustice in
D     society.

      79. Article 14 must be construed as a guarantee against
      uncanalised and arbitrary power. Therefore, the absence
      of any time-limit in granting sanction in Section 19 of the
      PC Act is not in consonance with the requirement of the
E
      due process of law which has been read into our
      Constitution by the Constitution Bench decision of this
      Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) 1 SCC
      248.
F      80. I may not be understood to have expressed any
       doubt about the constitutional validity of Section 19 of the
       PC Act, but in my judgment the power under Section 19
       of the PC Act must be reasonably exercised. In my
      judgment Parliament and the appropriate authority must
G     consider restructuring Section 19 of the PC Act in such
      a manner as to make it consonant with reason, justice
      and fair play.

      81. In my view, Parliament should consider the
H
  MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA                      587
      [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J.]
constitutional imperative of Article 14 enshrining the Rule      A
of Law wherein "due process of law" has been read into
iby introducing a time-limit in Section 19 of the PC Act,
 1988 for its working in a reasonable manner. Parliament
may, in my opinion, consider the following guidelines:
                                                                 B
 (a) All proposals for sanction placed before any
'Sanctioning authority empowered to grant sanction for
prosecution of a public servant under Section 19 of the
PC Act must be decided within a period of three months
 of the receipt of the proposal by the authority concerned.      c
(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)
                                                                 0
above, an extension of one month period may be
allowed, but the request for consultation is to be sent in
'(Vriting within the three months mentioned in clause (a)
above. A copy of the said _request will be sent to the
prosecuting agency or the private complainant to intimate        E
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               F
proceed to file the charge-sheet/complaint in the court to
pommence prosecution within 15 days of the expiry of the
aforementioned time-limit."

The above observations fully cover the issue raised in this      G
on.

12. Thus while it is not possible to hold that the requirement
nction is unconstitutional, the competent authority has to
 a decision on the issue of sanction expeditiously as            H
    588      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2014] 7 S.C.R.


A already observed. A fine balance has to be 'maintained
  between need to protect a public servant against ma/a fide
  prosecution on the one hand and the object of upholding the
  probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against
  whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption
B exists, on the other hand.

         13. In view of the law laid down by this Court, no further
    directions are necessary.

          14. The writ petition is disposed of.
c
    Rajendra Prasad                               · Writ Petition disposed of