Supreme Court quashes criminal proceedings against public servant for lack of sanction: Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 20, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 397

Judges: K.M. Joseph, B.V. Nagarathna, and Aravind Kumar, JJ.

Can a public servant be prosecuted for actions taken in their official capacity without prior sanction from the government? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving the tragic Uphaar cinema fire. The court examined whether the lack of proper sanction invalidated the criminal proceedings against a public servant. This case highlights the importance of procedural safeguards for public officials while ensuring accountability.

Case Background

The case revolves around a tragic fire at the Uphaar cinema in Delhi on June 13, 1997, which resulted in the deaths of 59 people and injuries to over 100. The incident led to criminal prosecutions against 16 accused individuals. During the trial, an application was filed under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to include the present appellant, Amod Kumar Kanth, as an additional accused. However, no immediate orders were passed on this application.

The trial against the initial 16 accused concluded on November 23, 2007, with the Sessions Judge ordering the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. Following this, the CBI filed a closure report on March 5, 2009, stating no criminal act was found against any officer other than those already chargesheeted. The Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy (first respondent) filed a protest petition on May 13, 2009. The Magistrate rejected the closure report and issued summons against Amod Kumar Kanth for offences under Section 304A, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. This order issuing summons was challenged under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which ultimately led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Additional Sessions Judge Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the closure report filed by the CBI and instead took cognizance on the protest petition filed by the first respondent, the Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy. The Magistrate issued summons against the appellant, Amod Kumar Kanth, for offenses under Section 304A, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. This order was challenged by the appellant in the High Court of Delhi under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition, upholding the Magistrate’s decision. This dismissal led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core legal issue revolves around Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.). This section mandates that prior sanction from the government is required before a court can 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 duties. Specifically, Section 197(1) of the Cr.P.C. states:

“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 by the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013.”

The purpose of this provision is to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions taken in the course of their official duties. It ensures that public servants can perform their duties without fear of unwarranted legal harassment.

Other relevant legal provisions mentioned in the judgment include:

• Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Causing death by negligence.
• Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
• Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
• Section 14 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952: Penalties for contravention of the Act and rules.
• Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C.: Further investigation by police.
• Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.: Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence.
• Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.: Inherent powers of High Court.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Amod Kumar Kanth):

• The primary contention was that the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance and issuing summons was illegal due to the lack of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant argued that all his actions were within the scope of his official duties as a licensing officer.
• The appellant emphasized that the decision to reduce cinema ticket prices and increase seats was taken in 1976, before he assumed office. He acted in accordance with the notification dated July 27, 1979, revoking the earlier decision, and issued orders to remove extra seats.
• He argued that even if there was negligence, his actions were still within the ambit of his official duties, thus requiring sanction for prosecution. He relied on several cases, including D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695 and Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan (2021) 8 SCC 768, to support his claim that sanction is necessary when the alleged act has a reasonable connection with official duty.
• The appellant also pointed out that the incident occurred 17 years after his actions, and annual inspections were conducted by other officers. He argued that the criminal proceedings were a result of the unfortunate fire and not directly attributable to his actions.
• He contended that the Court departed from the legal requirement by directing investigation under Section 173(8) of the Cr.P.C. after the trial was concluded, which is not permissible in law as per Sukhpal Singh Khaira v. State of Punjab (2023) 1 SCC 289.

Respondents’ Arguments (Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy, Delhi Police, CBI):

• The respondents argued that cognizance is taken of the offense and not the offender, and the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance given the gravity of the case.
• They highlighted that the appellant had defended his actions in his counter-affidavit and did not follow the High Court’s directions to their logical conclusion, particularly regarding the removal of extra seats.
• The respondents pointed out that the appellant’s actions were contrary to statutory rules governing safety features, and he had prevaricated without justification.
• The CBI, despite filing a closure report, argued that the trial court, the High Court, and the Supreme Court had found against the licensing authorities, including the appellant. They referred to Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI 2014(6) SCC 173, to support their argument.
• They argued that even if sanction was required, the court could direct the government to consider granting it, relying on Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari 2021 SCC Online SC 974.
• The respondents contended that the appellant’s conduct, including inconsistent statements about inspecting the theater, did not warrant immunity under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

Delhi Police’s Arguments:

• The Delhi Police supported the appellant’s contention that sanction is indispensable for taking cognizance against a public servant under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
• They cited Abdul Wahab Ansari v. State of Bihar (2000) 8 SCC 500 and Surinderjit Singh Mand v. State of Punjab (2016) 8 SCC 722 to emphasize that the question of sanction can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
• The Delhi Police also referred to Devinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2016) 12 SCC 87, which outlines the principles governing the application of Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance against the appellant without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the legal requirement of obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. before prosecuting a public servant for actions taken in their official capacity. The Court emphasized that the purpose of this provision is to protect public servants from unwarranted legal harassment and to enable them to perform their duties fearlessly.

The Court found that the appellant’s actions, from issuing notices to ordering the removal of seats, were all within the scope of his official duties. The Court noted that even if there were lapses or negligence, the actions were still connected to his official functions, thus requiring prior sanction for prosecution.

The Court also highlighted the distinction between the question of whether an offense was committed and whether a sanction is required to prosecute a public servant. The Court clarified that even if an offense was committed, the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be overlooked.

The Court also noted that the first respondent had sought sanction from the appropriate Government and a writ petition was also filed viz., 6238/2011 for directions to take appropriate steps in the matter. It is further noticed by us that on account of the pendency of the petition under Section 482 that no action was taken on the same.

Ratio Decidendi

The ratio decidendi of this case is that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is mandatory for prosecuting a public servant for actions taken while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of their official duties. This principle applies even if there are allegations of negligence or lapses in the performance of those duties. The key test is whether the act has a reasonable connection with the discharge of official duty. If such a connection exists, prior sanction is a prerequisite for taking cognizance of the offense.

Obiter Dicta

The obiter dicta in this case includes the following:

• The Court acknowledged the principle that it could direct the government to consider granting sanction, but did not do so in this particular case. This suggests that while the court has the power to direct the government to consider granting sanction, it is not an automatic or mandatory procedure.
• The Court noted the observations made in Sushil Ansal v. State through CBI regarding the lapses by licensing authorities in the Uphaar case. However, the Court clarified that these observations do not negate the requirement of sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C.
• The Court also noted that the first respondent had sought sanction from the appropriate Government and a writ petition was also filed viz., 6238/2011 for directions to take appropriate steps in the matter. It is further noticed by us that on account of the pendency of the petition under Section 482 that no action was taken on the same.

Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellant, Amod Kumar Kanth. The Court held that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offenses without the prior sanction required under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. The Court did not direct the government to consider granting sanction, effectively ending the criminal proceedings against the appellant in this matter.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Amod Kumar Kanth vs. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards for public servants. The case clarifies that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is not a mere formality but a mandatory requirement for prosecuting public servants for actions taken in their official capacity. This judgment serves as a reminder that while public servants must be held accountable for their actions, they are also entitled to protection from frivolous or vexatious prosecution, ensuring they can perform their duties without fear of unwarranted legal harassment. The decision highlights the balance that must be struck between accountability and protection in the administration of justice.