Process Of Sanction To Prosecute Public Servant Will Become A 'Dead Letter' If Order Is Interfered With Without Reason: Kerala High Court

A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the order of the government refusing to grant sanction for prosecution. It said:

“The discretion to grant or not to grant sanction, vests absolutely with the sanctioning authority. If the discretion of the sanctioning authority is not affected by any extraneous considerations and the authority has applied its mind independently to arrive at the conclusion, then this Court ought not to interfere with an order granting or refusing sanction. The purpose of sanction itself being to insulate a public servant from frivolous prosecutions, the said process would become a dead letter, if the orders of the sanctioning authority are interfered with, without any rhyme or reason.”

The first and second petitioners, who are the brothers of the deceased, alleged that their brother's death in 2001 was caused by police brutality at the hands of a Police Sub Inspector (third respondent) of Nilambur police station.

They alleged that the deceased who was standing at a bus stop was assaulted by the third respondent with his lathi. It is further alleged that the deceased collapsed and was rushed to hospital but his condition worsened, ultimately leading to his death.

A private complaint was filed seeking sanction to prosecute the third respondent, as the alleged misconduct occurred during the course of his official duties. The Government refused to grant sanction, which was challenged in the writ petition.

The petitioner contended that deceased died due to brutal attack of the police and sanction was required for prosecution of the third respondent. It is also stated that police case pending against the third respondent is different from private complaint for which sanction is required.

On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the sanctioning authority took note of all relevant factors before denying sanction to prosecute the third respondent. The respondents also stated that deceased died due to myocardial infarction and there was no injury on his body except some superficial scars. It is also argued that once sanctioning authority refuses to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant, the Courts must not intervene.

The Court observed that obtaining sanction to prosecute a public servant is a method to safeguard public servants from unnecessary prosecutions. It is stated that sanction is used to discourage frivolous and vexatious prosecutions against public servants.

The Court relying upon precedents stated that an order issued by sanctioning authority after consideration of all factors and with due application of mind should not be interfered with lightly through the process of judicial review.

Court stated, “ Once it is held that an offence was committed while acting in the discharge of official duties, the sanctioning authority's order, either granting sanction or refusing sanction, should not be generally interfered with in the exercise of the power of judicial review. The well established principle that it is not the decision but the decision making process alone that is under consideration while exercising the power of judicial review ought to deter this Court from interfering with orders of the sanctioning authority, without any legal basis. Circumspection is required while considering such challenges to orders of the sanctioning authority.”

The Court also noted that FIR was registered against the police officers under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC and that the prosecution is pending before the Magistrate Court.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title: Appu Nair and Anr. v State of Kerala and Others

Counsel for Petitioners: Advocate Rajit

Counsel for Respondents: Public Prosecutor C K Suresh, Advocates B.G.Harindranath, S.Rajeev, Maria Paul, Thomas J Anakkallunkal, Nirmal Cheriyan Varghese, Abishek Johny, Ayaraman S., V.Vinay, M.S.Aneer, Anilkumar C.R., Sarath K.P., Prerith Philip Joseph, K.S.Kiran Krishnan

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 6502 OF 2019

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705