Sanction Refused Twice, Then Revisited Under Pressure: Supreme Court Says Change of Opinion on Same Material Is Not Enough

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has dismissed the State of Rajasthan’s petition against a High Court order in favour of a government doctor accused of taking a bribe, holding that a decision refusing sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be reconsidered on the same material merely because of a change of opinion. Finding the reconsideration prompted by pressure, it imposed costs on the State.

A complaint alleged that the respondent, a government doctor, demanded money for a relative’s knee surgery in March 2017, and that Rs 2,000 was recovered in a trap from a locked drawer at his official residence. The departmental recommendations noted that the call transcripts did not clearly establish a demand, earlier payments were unsubstantiated and the patient had not complained.

On 14 March 2018 the Department of Personnel recommended refusing sanction; this was approved and the Chief Secretary declined sanction. On 24 May 2018 the matter was referred back for reconsideration from the Chief Minister’s office. The Department again recommended against sanction, but the Chief Secretary then opined that approval of sanction “may be considered”. The doctor challenged the sanction before the High Court and succeeded before a Single Judge.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can the sanctioning authority revisit a refusal of sanction to prosecute a public servant without any fresh material?

Sanction as a Safeguard Against Vexatious Prosecution

Relying on Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 09 SC CK 0118, the Court described sanction as “a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution” and said that where two views are possible, the view exonerating the officer should be preferred. Following State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, (2010) 12 SC CK 0058, it noted that neither Section 19 nor Section 197 CrPC expressly provides for review of a sanction decision.

Citing State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, (2009) 07 SC CK 0191 and Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar, (2000) 01 SC CK 0034, the Court held that a review is possible only on fresh material with proper application of mind, and that “A mere change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for review or reconsideration”. Here there was no new material and the reconsideration was prompted by pressure, so it saw no reason to interfere.

What the Court Actually Held

• The State’s Special Leave Petition was dismissed.
• The Court deprecated the interference and the harassment of public officers.
• The State was directed to pay costs quantified at Rs 50,000 “each”, before the High Court and the Supreme Court, within two months.
• If costs are not paid, the doctor may move a miscellaneous application in the disposed SLP.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It reaffirms that sanction decisions cannot be flipped without new material.
• It protects public servants from prosecution driven by extraneous pressure.
• It warns States that politically prompted reconsideration can attract costs.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Accused Public Servants

• Obtain the full sanction file to trace refusals, references back and the reasons for any change.
• Highlight the absence of fresh material and any outside pressure.

For Sanctioning Authorities

• Record reasons and identify any fresh material before reconsidering a refusal.
• Avoid acting on directions from outside the sanctioning chain.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

According to the judgment, only on fresh material and with proper application of mind, not on a mere change of opinion.

No. It dealt only with the validity of the sanction process.

The State; the text says Rs 50,000 “each” before the High Court and the Supreme Court, but does not clearly say how the amount is split.

Conclusion