Date of the Judgment: 27 April 2020
Citation: 2020 INSC 366
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J., Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J., Ajay Rastogi, J.
Can a trustee of a ‘deemed to be university’ be considered a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent judgment, clarifying the scope of who can be prosecuted for corruption. This case revolves around allegations of corruption against a trustee of a deemed university, specifically concerning the collection of extra fees from students. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justice N.V. Ramana, who authored the main opinion, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Justice Ajay Rastogi, who provided a concurring opinion.
Case Background
The case originated from a First Information Report (FIR) filed on 28 February 2017 by Dr. Jasminaben, alleging that her daughter was asked to pay an additional Rupees Twenty Lakhs to take her final MBBS examination at Sumandeep Vidyapeeth, a deemed university. The FIR stated that the respondent, Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, a trustee of the Sumandeep Charitable Trust, which sponsors the university, conspired with others to demand this payment. It was also alleged that the accused asked for the payment in cash and took undated cheques as security, considering the demonetization that had recently taken place. Following the FIR, a trap was set, and the accused were caught accepting the money. Subsequent raids led to the recovery of undated cheques worth more than Rs. 100 crores and certain fixed deposits. A chargesheet was filed on 25 April 2017 against several accused, including the respondent, for offences under Sections 7, 8, 10, 13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2012 | Complainant’s daughter admitted to MBBS course at Sumandeep Vidyapeeth. |
| 28 February 2017 | FIR filed by Dr. Jasminaben against the respondent and others. |
| 25 April 2017 | Chargesheet filed against the respondent and others. |
| 29 November 2017 | District and Sessions Court rejects the respondent’s discharge application. |
| 02 February 2018 | High Court of Gujarat allows the respondent’s criminal revision application and discharges him. |
| 27 April 2020 | Supreme Court sets aside the High Court’s order and allows the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The respondent filed a discharge application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the District and Sessions Court, which was rejected on 29 November 2017. Aggrieved by this rejection, the respondent filed a criminal revision application before the High Court of Gujarat. The High Court, through its judgment dated 02 February 2018, allowed the revision and discharged the respondent, concluding that he did not qualify as a public servant under Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The State of Gujarat then appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision at the heart of this case is Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which defines a “public servant”. This section includes:
“(xi) any person who is a Vice-Chancellor or member of any governing body, professor, reader, lecturer or any other teacher or employee, by whatever designation called, of any University and any person whose services have been availed of by a University or any other public authority in connection with holding or conducting examinations;”
The court also considered Section 2(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which defines “public duty” as:
‘public duty’ means a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.
Additionally, the court discussed the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, particularly Sections 2(f) and 3, which define “University” and “deemed to be University”, respectively.
Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 defines “University” as:
“University” means a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act, and includes any such institution as may, in consultation with the University concerned, be recognised by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act.
Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956 defines “deemed to be University” as:
The Central Government may, on the advice of the Commission, declare by notification in the Official Gazette, that any institution for higher education, other than a University, shall be deemed to be a University for the purposes of this Act, and on such a declaration being made, all the provisions of this Act shall apply to such institution as if it were a University within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2.
Arguments
Appellant (State of Gujarat)’s Submissions:
- The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is a comprehensive statute aimed at preventing corruption and should be interpreted liberally.
- Public function is not exclusive to the State; private institutions like universities also perform public functions, especially in imparting education.
- Deemed universities, under the UGC guidelines, effectively discharge the public function of education.
- There is no requirement of a master-servant relationship between the authority and the public servant. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides categories of public servants, not a definition.
- Lack of sanctioning authority does not prevent prosecution. Sanction was obtained from the Charity Commissioner as a precaution.
- The respondent was discharging a public duty by collecting fees for examination passes, even without a formal assignment.
Respondent (Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah)’s Submissions:
- Criminal statutes must be construed strictly. If two interpretations are possible, the one favoring the accused should be adopted.
- As a trustee, the respondent cannot be termed a public servant. The chargesheet does not allege he held a position in the university or was engaged by it.
- The High Court correctly held that Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is inapplicable to deemed universities.
- No valid sanction was obtained for prosecuting the respondent, as the Charity Commissioner is not a competent authority.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellant) | Sub-Submissions (Respondent) |
|---|---|---|
| Definition of Public Servant |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- Whether the respondent-trustee is a ‘public servant’ covered under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
- Whether the accused-respondent can be discharged under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC)?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the respondent-trustee is a ‘public servant’ covered under Section 2(c) of the PC Act? | Yes | The term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the PC Act includes “deemed to be University”. The emphasis is on the public duty performed, not the position held. The respondent was found to be performing public duty. |
| Whether the accused-respondent can be discharged under Section 227 of CrPC? | No | There was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, and the High Court’s decision to discharge was incorrect. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan, (1975) 2 SCC 377 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the argument that welfare legislation should be interpreted broadly. |
| M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala, (1963) Supp. (2) SCR 724 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the argument that welfare legislation should be interpreted broadly. |
| Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company, (2018) 9 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify that strict interpretation does not always mean literal interpretation. |
| Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to emphasize the need to interpret anti-corruption laws to strengthen the fight against corruption. |
| Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation, (2014) 9 SCC 657 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain that technical definitions under one statute should not be imported to another statute not in pari materia. |
| Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro, (2018) 1 SCC 468 | Supreme Court of India | The Court held that the High Court’s reliance on this judgment was not appropriate as it was with reference to enactments relating to administration/regulation of universities, and is unconnected with the objects of the PC Act. |
| CBI v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to support the argument that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, aims to widen the scope of the definition of “public servant”. |
| P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE), (1998) 4 SCC 626 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to clarify the meaning of the word “office”. |
| Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 14 SCC 420 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to further elucidate the ambit of the phrase “public servant” by stressing the relevance of “office” and the duties performed. |
| Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal, 1979 (3) SCC 4 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to consider the scope of Section 227 CrPC. |
| Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2010 (9) SCC 368 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to explain the principles emerging from Sections 227 and 228 of CrPC. |
| Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur, (1952) S.C.R. 1122 | Supreme Court of India | Cited to show that the term ‘any’ does not always mean ‘every’ but the court did not agree with this view in the present case. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| The PC Act should be interpreted strictly. | The Court agreed that penal statutes should be interpreted strictly but clarified that strict interpretation does not always mean literal interpretation. |
| A trustee of a deemed university cannot be a public servant. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the definition of “University” in the PC Act includes deemed universities. |
| The respondent was not holding any position in the university. | The Court noted that the emphasis is on the public duty performed, not the position held. |
| No valid sanction was obtained to prosecute the respondent. | The Court stated that the lack of sanctioning authority does not prevent prosecution. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court followed the principles laid down in State of Madhya Pradesh v. M. V. Narasimhan [(1975) 2 SCC 377] and M. Narayanan Nambiar v. State of Kerala [(1963) Supp. (2) SCR 724], stating that welfare legislation should be interpreted broadly.
- The Court clarified the principle of strict interpretation as laid down in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Company [(2018) 9 SCC 1].
- The Court emphasized the need to interpret anti-corruption laws to strengthen the fight against corruption as stated in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [(2012) 3 SCC 64].
- The Court clarified that technical definitions under one statute should not be imported to another statute not in pari materia as laid down in Bangalore Turf Club Ltd. v. Regional Director, ESI Corporation [(2014) 9 SCC 657].
- The Court disagreed with the High Court’s reliance on Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Rabi Sankar Patro [(2018) 1 SCC 468], stating that it was not appropriate in the context of the PC Act.
- The Court relied on CBI v. Ramesh Gelli [(2016) 3 SCC 788] to support its argument that the PC Act aims to widen the scope of the definition of “public servant”.
- The Court referred to P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State (CBI/SPE) [(1998) 4 SCC 626] and Manish Trivedi v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 14 SCC 420] to define the meaning of “office” and “public servant”.
- The Court considered the scope of Section 227 CrPC as laid down in Union of India Vs. Prafulla Kumar Samal [1979 (3) SCC 4].
- The Court explained the principles emerging from Sections 227 and 228 of CrPC as laid down in Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation [2010 (9) SCC 368].
- The Court clarified that the term ‘any’ does not always mean ‘every’ as stated in Hira Devi v. District Board, Shahjahanpur [(1952) S.C.R. 1122] but did not agree with this view in the present case.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the need to curb corruption, especially in the education sector. The court emphasized that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was enacted to bring about transparency and honesty in public life. The Court observed that the legislative intent was to shift focus from those who are traditionally called public officials to those individuals who perform public duties. The court also noted that the definition of “public servant” under the PC Act was intentionally broad to include individuals who might not conventionally be considered public servants but are still performing public functions. The Court also took into account the legislative debates which took place prior to the enactment of the PC Act where the purpose of preventing corruption in educational institutions was emphasized.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Need to curb corruption | 40% |
| Legislative intent of PC Act | 30% |
| Broad definition of ‘public servant’ | 20% |
| Legislative debates prior to the enactment of the PC Act. | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily driven by legal considerations (70%), focusing on the interpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, while also considering the factual aspects of the case (30%).
Logical Reasoning:
The Court considered the argument that the term “University” should be read strictly as defined under the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, but rejected it, stating that the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has a different purpose and that the term “University” should be interpreted broadly to include “deemed to be University” as both perform the public duty of imparting education. The Court also rejected the argument that a trustee cannot be a public servant, emphasizing that the focus is on the public duty performed. The Court also rejected the argument that no valid sanction was obtained, stating that the lack of sanctioning authority does not prevent prosecution.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was incorrect in holding that a “Deemed University” is excluded from the ambit of the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court emphasized that the emphasis is on the public duty performed, and not the position held. The Court noted that the respondent was involved in the collection of fees and facilitating examinations, which constitutes a public duty.
The Court stated, “The golden rule of interpretation for any penal legislation is to interpret the same strictly, unless any constitutional considerations are involved, and in cases of ambiguity, the benefit of the same should enure in favour of the accused.” However, the court also noted, “There is no dispute that corruption in India is pervasive. Its impact on the nation is more pronounced, due to the fact that India is still a developing economy.” The Court further emphasized, “Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption.”
The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench consisting of Justice N.V. Ramana, who authored the main opinion, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Justice Ajay Rastogi, who provided a concurring opinion. All three judges agreed on the final outcome.
Key Takeaways
- The definition of “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, includes “deemed to be University”.
- Trustees and members of the governing bodies of deemed universities can be considered “public servants” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- The emphasis is on the public duty performed, not the position held.
- Anti-corruption laws should be interpreted broadly to strengthen the fight against corruption.
Directions
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and directed the trial court to proceed with the case expeditiously.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the term “University” under Section 2(c)(xi) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, includes “deemed to be University” and that the focus is on the public duty performed and not the position held. This judgment expands the scope of the definition of “public servant” under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and clarifies that individuals performing public duties in educational institutions, including deemed universities, can be prosecuted for corruption.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah clarifies that trustees of deemed universities can be considered public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, if they are performing public duties. This decision strengthens the anti-corruption framework and ensures that those involved in educational institutions are held accountable for their actions.