Supreme Court clarifies the role of CVC and time limits for sanction in corruption cases: Vijay Rajmohan vs. State (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: October 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 538

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.

Can a sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 be deemed illegal if the Appointing Authority consults the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC)? Is the three-month deadline for deciding on a sanction request mandatory? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed these critical questions in a case concerning disproportionate assets of a public servant. This judgment clarifies the interplay between the CVC, the Appointing Authority, and the timelines for granting sanction in corruption cases. The judgment was authored by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with Justice B.R. Gavai concurring.

Case Background

The appellant, an official of the Central Secretarial Service, was accused of acquiring assets disproportionate to his known income between January 1, 2005, and October 31, 2012, while posted in New Delhi and Bangalore. By December 31, 2012, these disproportionate assets were valued at ₹79,17,593. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered a First Information Report (FIR) on November 20, 2012, against the appellant, his father, and his mother under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The CBI completed its investigation on September 8, 2015, and requested sanction from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the appointing authority, to prosecute the appellant. The DoPT sought clarifications from the CBI on November 26, 2015, and after receiving them on December 15, 2015, consulted the CVC on January 7, 2016, due to perceived errors in the CBI investigation. The CVC sought further clarifications from the CBI on March 18, 2016, and on June 1, 2016, communicated its opinion to the DoPT that it was a strong case for sanction, subject to re-investigation on certain aspects. Due to lack of clarity, the DoPT asked the CVC on August 26, 2016, whether it recommended sanction or re-investigation. The CVC clarified on September 20, 2016, that the CBI should re-investigate. The DoPT then closed the sanction proposal on October 5, 2016, until a new proposal was received.

The CBI submitted a revised explanation to the CVC on September 27, 2016, and the CVC advised the DoPT to grant sanction on November 25, 2016. The DoPT sought confirmation on whether the CBI had completed re-investigation on December 16, 2016, to which the CVC responded on February 9, 2017, confirming its satisfaction with the CBI proposal. Finally, on July 24, 2017, the DoPT granted sanction for prosecution. Thus, the sanction was granted approximately one year and ten months after the CBI’s initial request.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the Principal Special Judge for CBI, arguing that the sanction order was passed without proper application of mind. The Trial Court allowed the application on December 13, 2018, discharging the appellant, concluding that the DoPT had merely relied on the CVC’s advice without independent assessment.

The State challenged this order in the High Court of Judicature at Madras through a Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that the CVC’s advice was relevant under Section 8(1)(g) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (CVC Act). The High Court further noted that the DoPT had considered all relevant material and independently applied its mind before granting sanction to prosecute the appellant. This order of the High Court is the subject of the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment discusses several key legal provisions:

• Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.: This section mandates prior sanction for the prosecution of judges, magistrates, and public servants. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the sanctioning authority must have relevant material before it and must independently apply its mind before granting sanction.
• Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act): This section also requires prior sanction for prosecuting public servants for offenses under the PC Act. The same principles of having relevant material and independent application of mind apply to this section. The 2018 amendment to this section introduced a time limit of three months (extendable by one month for legal consultation) for the appropriate government or competent authority to decide on a sanction proposal.
• Section 8 of the CVC Act: This section outlines the functions and powers of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). It includes the power to:
  • Exercise superintendence over the CBI in relation to the investigation of offenses under the PC Act [Section 8(1)(a)].
  • Give directions to the CBI in the discharge of its functions [Section 8(1)(b)].
  • Inquire into offenses alleged to have been committed under the PC Act based on a reference by the Central Government [Section 8(1)(c)].
  • Inquire into complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses under the PC Act [Section 8(1)(d)].
  • Review the progress of investigations by the CBI for offenses under the PC Act [Section 8(1)(e)].
  • Review the progress of applications pending with competent authorities for sanction of prosecution under the PC Act [Section 8(1)(f)].
  • Tender advice to the Central Government on matters referred to it [Section 8(1)(g)].
  • Exercise limited superintendence over the vigilance administration of various Ministries of the Central Government [Section 8(1)(h)].
• Section 8A and 8B of the CVC Act: These sections, inserted by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, detail the CVC’s powers regarding preliminary inquiries and investigations into corruption allegations.

The Court emphasizes that these statutes form an integrated scheme aimed at ensuring integrity in governance.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The sanction for prosecution granted by the DoPT on July 24, 2017, was made without independent application of mind. The DoPT acted on the dictation of the CVC, thereby vitiating the sanction order. The appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622], which held that a sanction order is bad if the sanctioning authority does not apply its independent mind or acts under compulsion.
• There was an inordinate delay in granting the sanction. The CBI requested sanction on September 8, 2015, but the sanction order was passed on July 24, 2017, almost two years later. This delay is fatal to the proceedings, and the criminal proceedings against the appellant should be quashed. The appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226] and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 64], which set an outer limit of three months for granting sanction.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The DoPT, while granting sanction, considered the report of the CVC but applied its independent mind. The DoPT reviewed the correspondence between the CBI, CVC, and DoPT before granting the sanction.
• The issue of delay was not raised at any point before the Trial Court or High Court, nor was it a ground in the Special Leave Petition. However, the time period for granting sanction is directory and not mandatory. The consequence of non-grant of sanction within three months is deemed sanction, not quashing of criminal proceedings, as per the decisions of the Supreme Court.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the order of sanction is illegal due to non-application of mind by the DoPT for acting as per dictation of CVC.
2. Whether the criminal proceedings could be quashed for the delay of about two years in the issuance of the sanction order.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622] – Supreme Court of India. This case was relied upon by the appellant to argue that the sanctioning authority must apply its independent mind and not act under dictation. However, this case was distinguished by the court on the ground that it was decided prior to the enactment of the CVC Act.
• Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226] – Supreme Court of India. This case set a normative prescription of three months for grant of sanction.
• Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 64] – Supreme Court of India. This case suggested that Parliament may consider prescribing clear time limits for the grant of sanction and provide for a deemed sanction.
• State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti [(2009) 17 SCC 92] – Supreme Court of India. This case emphasizes that the sanctioning authority must have relevant material before it and must independently apply its mind before granting sanction.
• Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana & Ors [(2006) 1 SCC 294] – Supreme Court of India. This case also emphasizes the need for the sanctioning authority to apply its mind.
• State (Anti-Corruption Branch) v. R.C. Anand (Dr.) [(2004) 4 SCC 615] – Supreme Court of India. This case reiterates the requirement of independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority under the PC Act.
• C.S. Krishnamurthy v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 4 SCC 81] – Supreme Court of India. This case also emphasizes the need for the sanctioning authority to apply its mind.
• State of Karnataka v. Ameerjan [(2007) 11 SCC 273] – Supreme Court of India. This case reiterates the requirement of independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority under the PC Act.
• CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [(2014) 14 SCC 295] – Supreme Court of India. This case also reiterates the requirement of independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority under the PC Act.
• Vivek Batra v. Union of India– Supreme Court of India. This case held that the opinion of the CVC cannot be said to be irrelevant.
• Mahendra Lal Das v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 149] – Supreme Court of India. This case quashed criminal proceedings due to abnormal delay in granting sanction.
• Ramanand Chaudhary v. State of Bihar & Ors. [(2002) 1 SCC 153] – Supreme Court of India. This case also quashed criminal proceedings due to abnormal delay in granting sanction.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. – Requirement of sanction for prosecution of judges, magistrates, and public servants.
• Section 19 of the PC Act – Requirement of sanction for prosecution under the PC Act, including the 2018 amendment introducing time limits.
• Section 8 of the CVC Act – Functions and powers of the Central Vigilance Commission.
• Section 8A and 8B of the CVC Act – Powers of CVC regarding preliminary inquiries and investigations.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [(1997) 7 SCC 622]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that it was decided before the enactment of the CVC Act and other legislative changes.
• Vineet Narain & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [(1998) 1 SCC 226]*: The Court relied on this case for the principle of a three-month time limit for granting sanction.
• Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. [(2012) 3 SCC 64]*: The Court referred to this case for its suggestion regarding time limits and deemed sanction, although it did not implement the deemed sanction principle.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized several key points in its reasoning:

• Integrated Scheme of Anti-Corruption Laws: The Court highlighted that the Cr.P.C., DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal Act form an integrated scheme for combating corruption. The CVC is specifically entrusted with the duty of providing expert advice.
• Advisory Role of CVC: The Court clarified that the opinion of the CVC is advisory and a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority. The final decision must be of the appointing authority, based on an independent application of mind.
• Mandatory Time Limit for Sanction: The Court held that the three-month time limit (extendable by one month for legal consultation) for granting sanction is mandatory, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of sanction requests.
• Accountability for Delay: The Court stressed that non-compliance with the mandatory time limit does not lead to automatic quashing of criminal proceedings. Instead, the competent authority is accountable for the delay and subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC.
• Public Interest: The Court noted that the prosecution of a public servant for corruption has an element of public interest and is essential for maintaining the Rule of Law.
• Need for Accountability: The Court emphasized that accountability is a crucial aspect of administrative law and the human rights framework. It includes responsibility, answerability, and enforceability.

[TABLE] Ranking of Sentiment Analysis:

Ratio of Fact to Law:

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the order of the Trial Court. The Court upheld the order of the High Court, which had allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the State. The Supreme Court held that the sanction order was not illegal and that the criminal proceedings should continue.

The Court, however, clarified that the three-month time limit for granting sanction is mandatory, and non-compliance does not automatically lead to quashing of proceedings. The competent authority is accountable for the delay, and the CVC can take administrative action.

The Court made the following specific orders:

1. The appeal was partly allowed.
2. The order of the Trial Court discharging the appellant was set aside.
3. The order of the High Court allowing the criminal revision petition filed by the State was upheld.
4. The criminal proceedings against the appellant were to continue.
5. The competent authority is accountable for the delay in granting sanction.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Vijay Rajmohan vs. State provides critical clarifications on the sanction process under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• CVC’s Role is Advisory: The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) plays an important advisory role in the sanction process, but the ultimate decision rests with the appointing authority. The appointing authority must independently apply its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case.
• Time Limit for Sanction is Mandatory: The three-month time limit (extendable by one month for legal consultation) for granting sanction is mandatory. However, non-compliance does not automatically lead to quashing of criminal proceedings.
• Accountability for Delay: The competent authority is accountable for delays in granting sanction. The CVC can take administrative action against the competent authority for non-compliance with the prescribed time limit.
• Criminal Proceedings to Continue: The Court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be quashed solely on the ground of delay in granting sanction. The focus should be on the merits of the case and the public interest in prosecuting corruption.
• Integrated Anti-Corruption Framework: The judgment reinforces the integrated nature of anti-corruption laws, emphasizing the need for a coordinated approach to combat corruption.

Flowchart: Sanction Process