The Supreme Court has made it clear that authorities cannot revisit a decision refusing prosecution sanction against a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, merely because a different opinion later emerges from the same set of facts.
A Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran held that a sanction order declining prosecution attains finality unless new evidence, unavailable at the time of the original decision, comes to light.
The Court observed that a change in perspective, unsupported by additional material, cannot justify reopening a matter that has already been examined and decided.
The ruling came while upholding a decision of the Rajasthan High Court that had struck down a subsequent sanction order issued against doctor Dev Kant Meena.
The dispute traces back to a 2017 anti-corruption operation in which Meena was accused of seeking a bribe from a patient’s family in exchange for facilitating a knee surgery. Investigators claimed that ₹2,000 was recovered from a locked drawer at his official residence during the trap proceedings.
However, the Department of Personnel, after scrutinising the evidence in March 2018, concluded that there was no conclusive proof of either a demand for illegal gratification or its acceptance. Based on that assessment, the department recommended refusal of sanction, a view that was subsequently endorsed by both the Principal Secretary and the Chief Secretary.
The controversy arose when, despite the absence of any new evidence, the matter was reopened in May 2018 following intervention from the Chief Minister’s Office. The reconsideration ultimately resulted in sanction being granted, a move that was later invalidated by the Rajasthan High Court.
Rejecting the State’s challenge, the Supreme Court expressed disapproval of the manner in which the issue was revived. The judgment, authored by Justice Chandran, noted that once the competent authorities had refused sanction, it was inappropriate for a Joint Secretary attached to the Chief Minister’s Office to push for reconsideration on the basis of the very same material.
The Bench observed that the subsequent exercise reflected a failure to independently apply one’s mind, particularly when the evidence available during the second round of scrutiny was identical to that considered earlier.
The Court further remarked that public servants should not be exposed to criminal prosecution when the material on record permits more than one possible interpretation. In such situations, the benefit of doubt must favour the officer concerned, especially since criminal liability can be established only through proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Coming down heavily on the State’s conduct, the Court said that the respondent had been unnecessarily drawn into prolonged litigation because of the review initiated from the Chief Minister’s Office.
Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court imposed costs of ₹50,000 each to be deposited before the High Court and the apex court.
