Why in news
The recent decision by Karnataka Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot to open an investigation against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah has brought the issue of sanction to prosecute public servants to the forefront.
The issue has raised legal and constitutional questions, leading to the Karnataka High Court postponing the consideration of private complaints against the Chief Minister.
Sanction Requirement
sanction for prosecuting a public servant is a mandatory feature of anti-corruption law to protect them from malicious prosecution.
Section 197 of CrPC: No court can take cognizance of a case against a public servant without the sanction of a competent authority.
Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act: Similar provision, but sanction requirement was limited to the time in office.
State and Central Governments: Both have the authority to sanction prosecution of their respective employees.
Latest Provisions
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) Retains the sanction provisions.
2018 Amendment: Introduced a new provision requiring government approval even to begin an investigation.
The 2018 amendment applies to both current and former public servants.
Governor's Role
The Governor is considered the authority to grant sanction for prosecuting a Chief Minister.
The Supreme Court has held that the Governor should act in his discretion while considering sanction, not on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
Court Rulings
A. R. Antulay Case: The Supreme Court upheld the Governor's decision to grant sanction for prosecuting the Chief Minister.
Madhya Pradesh Case: The Supreme Court found the Council of Ministers' decision to deny sanction "irrational" and upheld the Governor's action.
COMMENTS