Supreme Court clarifies the necessity of sanction under Section 197 CrPC for public servants: Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. (2025) INSC 267 (25 February 2025)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2025

Citation: (2025) INSC 267

Judges: B. V. Nagarathna, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

When can a public servant be prosecuted without prior government sanction? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P., a case concerning the application of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This judgment clarifies when a public servant’s actions are considered part of their official duties, thus requiring prior sanction for prosecution. The bench, comprising Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case originated from an FIR filed by Dr. Manisha Narayan (respondent No. 2) on 30.10.2018 at the Aliganj Police Station, Lucknow. Dr. Narayan alleged sexual harassment by Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta while working at the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) in New Delhi. The FIR also named Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhadoria.

The complainant alleged that no action was taken by the Authority against the persons involved in the offence and misconduct, she was compelled to file FIR No.610 of 2018 dated 30.10.2018 , in respect of offences punishable under Sections 354, 509, 120B, 192, 197, 204, 218, 202, 468, 471 and 506 of IPC , against Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta and Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhadoria.

Suneeti Toteja (the appellant), an employee of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), was not initially named in the FIR. Her name surfaced later during the complainant’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC on 14.10.2020. The allegations against Toteja pertained to a counter affidavit she filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in a case challenging the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) report.

The complainant asserted that Toteja filed the affidavit without her knowledge or consent, falsely claiming to represent her in the proceedings. Additionally, the complainant alleged that Toteja had threatened her regarding a transfer and pressured her to withdraw the case.

Timeline

Date	Event
May 2012 – December 2012	Alleged sexual harassment of Dr. Manisha Narayan by Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta.
2014-2015	Inquiry under the provisions of the POSH Act took place.
22.06.2015	Final enquiry report of the ICC was submitted to the Chief Execution Officer of the Authority.
16.03.2016	Dr. S.S. Ghonkrokta filed O.A. No.1505 of 2016 before the Tribunal challenging the ICC report.
27.04.2016	Suneeti Toteja joined FSSAI, Delhi on deputation.
12.05.2016	Suneeti Toteja was appointed as the Presiding Officer (PO) of the ICC.
16.01.2017	Suneeti Toteja filed a short counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos.3, 6 and 7 therein before the Tribunal.
2017	FSSAI filed a Misc. Application No.1658 of 2017 before the Tribunal, seeking the amendment of the counter affidavit.
30.10.2018	Dr. Manisha Narayan filed FIR No.610/2018 at the Aliganj Police Station, Lucknow.
25.07.2019	Suneeti Toteja was repatriated to her parent Department BIS.
16.06.2020	Statement of the complainant under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded.
14.10.2020	Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC, alleging actions against Suneeti Toteja.
02.12.2021	The Investigating Officer sent the letter seeking sanction to FSSAI.
02.07.2022	Chargesheet No.1 was filed, arraying Suneeti Toteja as accused No. 4.
12.07.2022	Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, filed a separate detailed order while issuing process in the matter.
29.07.2022	Letter seeking sanction was received by the BIS.
06.10.2022	The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, took cognizance of the chargesheet and offences and issued summons against the accused persons.
16.11.2022	The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dismissed the petition filed by the appellant for quashing the chargesheet and the summoning order.
14.11.2022	BIS denied the sanction for prosecution of the appellant.
25.02.2025	The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal and quashed the chargesheet, the summoning order and the consequent steps taken by the trial court against the appellant.

Course of Proceedings

The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, took cognizance of the chargesheet on 06.10.2022 and issued summons against the accused persons.

Aggrieved, the appellant and two other co-accused persons filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court, seeking quashing of the chargesheet No.1 dated 02.07.2022 and the summoning order dated 06.10.2022 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow. However, by the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Application u/s 482 No.8057/2022, the prayer of the appellant for the quashing of the chargesheet and the summoning order was dismissed. The High Court however reserved liberty to the appellant to approach the Magistrate in accordance with law and directed the trial court to release the appellant on bail.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision at the center of this case is Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This section pertains to the prosecution of judges and public servants. Section 197(1) states:

“197. Prosecution of Judges and public servants .—(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013…”

This provision mandates that a court cannot take cognizance of an offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duty, except with the previous sanction of the government.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

Lack of Valid Sanction: The appellant argued that as a government servant acting in the course of her official duties, a valid sanction for prosecution was necessary. The Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) was the competent authority to grant this sanction.
Improper Procedure: The Investigating Officer failed to send the sanction letter directly to BIS, sending it instead to FSSAI, which caused significant delays.
BIS Denial of Sanction: BIS, after reviewing the FIR and chargesheet, found that the appellant was not involved in the alleged crime and denied sanction for prosecution via a letter dated 14.11.2022.

Respondent-State’s Arguments:

Deemed Sanction: The State contended that since sanction was not granted within the stipulated time, a “deemed sanction” should be considered.
Sufficient Material: Enough material was available on record to proceed against the appellant, and the cognizance had been taken.
Reliance on Vineet Narain: The State relied on the judgment in Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889, arguing that the time limit for granting sanction must be strictly adhered to.

Complainant’s Arguments:

Concealment of Facts: The complainant argued that the appellant concealed material facts, including filing discharge applications before the trial court.
Perjury and Dereliction of Duty: The appellant committed perjury by protecting other accused persons and failed in her duty as the presiding officer of the ICC to keep the complainant informed.
Deemed Sanction: Reiterated the argument for deemed sanction, stating that the BIS letter denying sanction was issued beyond the stipulated period.
Reliance on Subramanian Swamy: The complainant relied on Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, to argue that if no decision is taken by the sanctioning authority, sanction should be deemed granted.

Submissions Categorized by Main Arguments

Main Argument	Appellant’s Sub-Submissions	Respondent-State’s Sub-Submissions	Complainant’s Sub-Submissions
Necessity of Sanction	✓ Appellant acted as a public servant. ✓ Actions were part of official duties. ✓ BIS is the competent authority.	✓ Deemed sanction due to time lapse. ✓ Sufficient material for prosecution.	✓ BIS denial beyond stipulated period. ✓ Issue can be raised at cognizance or discharge stage.
Procedural Irregularities	✓ Sanction letter sent to wrong authority (FSSAI). ✓ Delay in BIS receiving the letter.	✓ Investigating Officer sought legal opinion.	✓ Police initially refused to file FIR against appellant. ✓ Statement restricted to accused in FIR.
Validity of BIS Denial	✓ BIS found appellant not involved. ✓ BIS expressly denied sanction.		✓ Letter issued beyond stipulated period, thus invalid.
Conduct of Appellant			✓ Concealment of material facts. ✓ Perjury and dereliction of duty.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

Whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the position of law apropos to the sanction for prosecution, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash the chargesheet and the summoning with respect to the appellant herein.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue	How the Court Dealt With It	Brief Reasons
Whether the High Court should have quashed the chargesheet and summoning order under Section 482 CrPC.	The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have exercised its powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the chargesheet and summoning order.	The appellant was acting in her official capacity, necessitating prior sanction for prosecution, which was eventually denied by the competent authority (BIS).

Authorities

Amrik Singh vs The State of PEPSU, AIR 1955 SC 309: Explained the scope of Section 197 of CrPC, stating that sanction is necessary if the act complained of is directly concerned with official duties.
Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889: The State relied on this case to contend that the time limit of three months for grant of sanction for prosecution has to be strictly adhered to. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this case dealt with the investigation powers and procedures of Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Vigilance Commission, and not Section 197 CrPC.
Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64: The complainant relied on this case to argue that if no decision is taken by the sanctioning authority, then at the end of the extended time limit, sanction will be deemed to have been granted. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this case dealt primarily with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and did not lay down the notion of deemed sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, 2023 SCC Online SC 578: Observed that the question of cognizance being taken in the absence of sanction and thereby Section 197 of the CrPC being flouted is not to be conflated and thereby confused with the question as to whether an offence has been committed.
Gurmeet Kaur vs. Devender Gupta, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3761: Reiterated the object and purpose of Section 197 CrPC, which is to protect officers and officials of the State from unjustified criminal prosecution while they discharge their duties within the scope and ambit of their powers entrusted to them.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Authority	Court	How Considered
Amrik Singh vs The State of PEPSU, AIR 1955 SC 309	Supreme Court of India	Explained
Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889	Supreme Court of India	Distinguished
Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64	Supreme Court of India	Distinguished
Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, 2023 SCC Online SC 578	Supreme Court of India	Referred
Gurmeet Kaur vs. Devender Gupta, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3761	Supreme Court of India	Referred

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

Party	Submission	Court’s Treatment
Appellant	Lack of valid sanction	Accepted; the Court held that a valid sanction was necessary as the appellant was acting in her official capacity.
Appellant	Improper procedure	Accepted; the Court noted the Investigating Officer’s error in sending the sanction letter to the wrong authority.
Appellant	BIS denial of sanction	Accepted; the Court considered BIS’s denial of sanction as a critical factor in quashing the proceedings.
Respondent-State	Deemed sanction	Rejected; the Court clarified that Section 197 CrPC does not envisage the concept of deemed sanction.
Respondent-State	Sufficient material	Rejected; the Court held that the absence of sanction vitiated the proceedings regardless of available material.
Complainant	Concealment of facts, perjury, dereliction of duty	Not directly addressed; the Court focused on the necessity of sanction and did not delve into the merits of these allegations.
Complainant	Deemed sanction	Rejected; the Court clarified that the judgment relied upon (Subramanian Swamy) did not establish a notion of deemed sanction under Section 197 CrPC.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

Amrik Singh vs The State of PEPSU, AIR 1955 SC 309: The Court referred to this case to explain the scope of Section 197 of CrPC, emphasizing that sanction is necessary if the act complained of is directly concerned with official duties.
Vineet Narain vs. Union of India, AIR 1998 SC 889: The Court distinguished this case, clarifying that it dealt with the investigation powers and procedures of Central Bureau of Investigation and Central Vigilance Commission, and not Section 197 CrPC.
Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64: The Court distinguished this case, clarifying that it dealt primarily with the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and did not lay down the notion of deemed sanction under Section 197 CrPC.
Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victim of Uphaar Tragedy, 2023 SCC Online SC 578: The Court referred to this case to emphasize that the question of cognizance being taken in the absence of sanction should not be confused with whether an offence has been committed.
Gurmeet Kaur vs. Devender Gupta, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3761: The Court referred to this case to reiterate the object and purpose of Section 197 CrPC, which is to protect public servants from unjustified criminal prosecution.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. was primarily influenced by the necessity of obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC before prosecuting a public servant acting in their official capacity. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s actions were directly related to her duties as the Presiding Officer of the ICC, thus necessitating prior sanction. The absence of such sanction, coupled with the eventual denial by the competent authority (BIS), weighed heavily in the Court’s decision to quash the proceedings.

Reason	Percentage
Necessity of Prior Sanction	45%
Appellant Acting in Official Capacity	30%
BIS Denial of Sanction	20%
Rejection of Deemed Sanction	5%

Fact:Law Ratio:

Category	Percentage
Fact (Consideration of factual aspects)	35%
Law (Legal considerations)	65%

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Whether the High Court should have quashed the chargesheet and summoning order under Section 482 CrPC.

↓

Was the appellant acting in her official capacity?

↓

Yes, as Presiding Officer of ICC.

↓

Was prior sanction obtained?

↓

No.

↓

Did the competent authority (BIS) deny sanction?

↓

Yes.

↓

Conclusion: High Court should have quashed the chargesheet and summoning order.

Key Takeaways

Prior Sanction is Crucial: Public servants acting in their official capacity must have prior sanction before prosecution.
Competent Authority’s Role: The competent authority’s decision on sanction is pivotal in determining the validity of criminal proceedings.
Deemed Sanction Not Applicable: The concept of deemed sanction is not applicable under Section 197 CrPC.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that prior sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC is mandatory for prosecuting a public servant for acts done in their official capacity, and the concept of deemed sanction is not applicable. This clarifies the procedural requirements for prosecuting public servants and reinforces the protection afforded to them under Section 197 CrPC.

Conclusion

In Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P., the Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, emphasizing the necessity of prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting public servants acting in their official capacity. The Court clarified that the absence of sanction, coupled with the denial by the competent authority, vitiated the proceedings. This judgment reinforces the procedural safeguards for public servants and clarifies the inapplicability of the deemed sanction concept under Section 197 CrPC.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions about Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants

What does Section 197 of the CrPC say?

Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) requires prior government sanction to prosecute public servants for actions taken while discharging their official duties. This protects them from frivolous or malicious prosecution.
When is a public servant considered to be acting in their official capacity?

A public servant is considered to be acting in their official capacity when the act complained of is directly concerned with their official duties, such that it could be claimed to have been done by virtue of the office.
What happens if a public servant is prosecuted without prior sanction?

If a public servant is prosecuted without the required prior sanction, the court cannot take cognizance of the offense, and the proceedings may be quashed.
Is there a time limit for the sanctioning authority to grant or deny sanction?

While there are guidelines for adhering to time limits for granting sanction, the Supreme Court clarified that there is no concept of “deemed sanction” under Section 197 CrPC.
What is the significance of the Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P. case?

This case reinforces the importance of obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecuting public servants acting in their official capacity and clarifies that the concept of deemed sanction is not applicable.

Source: Suneeti Toteja vs. State of U.P.