Refusal Of Sanction Without Considering Prosecution Material, Merely Praising Accused's Work Not Valid: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a sanction order denying prosecution of public servant is not valid if the same was made without reference to the prosecution materials and merely depicts appraisal of the accused's contributions. Such an order cannot be termed to be one made with application of mind, it added.
Justice A. Badharudeen remarked that though sanction order is a safeguard against frivolous litigation, the same cannot be considered in a pedantic manner. He was considering a writ petition filed by a student of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit challenging the Syndicate's order denying sanction to prosecute a Head of the department of the University (8th respondent). He also sought a direction to the University to decide on grant of sanction in accordance with law.
Referring to various precedents, including Kadakampally Manoj v. State of Kerala, the Court observed:
"On perusal of the decisions referred hereinabove it is emphatically clear that the validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority."
The offences allegation against the 8th respondent were those under Section 13(1)(d), 13(2) [Criminal misconduct by a public servant] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, together with Sections 420 [Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property], 468 [Forgery for purpose of cheating], 471 [Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record] and 474 [Having possession of document described in sections 466 or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine] of the IPC.
The Court also noted that grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the duty of the sanctioning authority is only to satisfy if, prima facie, there is an offence committed. It further remarked:
"The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction."
It opined that since there was no reference to the prosecution materials and only contains a mere appraisal of the contributions made by the accused, the order cannot be stated to be one made with application of mind. The Court's observation was:
"In Ext. P2, the sanction order, there is no prima facie application of mind, and there is no reference to the prosecution materials. Ext. P2 merely depicts an appraisal of the contributions made by the 8th accused to the University, so that the accused of such a stature could not be prosecuted are the reasons for denying sanction, without adhering to the procedure established by law."
The Court, thus, set aside the order and directed the Syndicate to consider the question of sanction afresh.
Case No: WP(Crl) No. 1282 of 2023
Case Title: Anirudh P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
Counsel for the petitioner: S. Abhilash Vishnu
Counsel for the respondents: Rajesh A. - Spl. GP (VACB), Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken - SC - Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, V.M. Krishnakumar, Kavya Sreejith