Andhra Pradhesh HC Sets Aside 1996 Govt Memo Requiring Anti-Corruption Officials To Obtain Sanction Of CM Before Probing Bureaucrats

A division bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati, referred to the case of Vineet Narayan v. Union of India [AIR 1998 SC 889], where the Supreme Court had dealt with the legality of obtaining prior sanction of designated authority before initiating investigation against officers above a certain level and had held that accusation of corruption, in bribery and like cases, including trap cases, is based on direct evidence, and the level or status of the offender in such cases is irrelevant.

In light of these observations, the High Court held,

“…the executive orders of the State Governments in violation thereof had become inoperative, illegal and unconstitutional. As a corollary, the instructions contained in the impugned memo in contradistinction to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not survive. Further, as rightly stated in the counter affidavit, necessity of prior sanction provided in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is only for prosecution but not for investigation.”

Background

The Court was dealing with a writ petition which was filed challenging the Memo (No.404/SC/D/96-1), dated 06.05.1996 (impugned memo), on the grounds that it deterred Anti-Corruption Bureau officials from proceeding against the officers of All India Services and Heads of Departments, without obtaining orders from the Chief Minister.

The instruction on the impugned memo read as:

“The Director-General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P., Hyderabad will send confidential reports in respect of All India Service Officers and Heads of Departments to the Chief Secretary, who will obtain the orders of Chief Minister, thereon.”

It was the case of the petitioner that the impugned memo provided bullet proof protection to officers of All India Services and Heads of Departments. This was argued to further incentivise such officials to fearlessly resort to corrupt practices. Additionally, it was urged that the impugned memo discriminated between the IAS and non-IAS cadre officers.

Contrary to this, the respondents, in their counter-affidavit, argued that the impugned memo was issued to eliminate anomalies present in the earlier instructions issued vide Memo No.163/SC.D/83-2, and to bring it in conformity with the Andhra Pradesh Government Business Rules and Secretariat Instructions. Additionally, it was submitted that no sanction for investigation was required but for prosecution as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The Court, however, held that the impugned memo would not survive owing to the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narayan.

Dismissing the writ petition, the Court held,

“In view of the observations made in the decision referred to above and the language employed in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.”

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 1550/2009

Case Title: C.narayana v. State Of AP and Others

Date: 25.04.2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order