Court says prosecution sanction granted after earlier rejection was arbitrary; reiterates sanction must reflect independent application of mind.
Jaipur: In a significant victory for procedural fairness in corruption prosecutions, the Supreme Court has upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision quashing the prosecution sanction against Dr. Dev Kant Meena, a Professor of Orthopaedics at SMS Medical College, Jaipur, holding that the State Government illegally reviewed its earlier refusal to grant sanction without any fresh material.
The apex court also imposed costs of ₹50,000 each before the High Court and the Supreme Court (₹1 lakh in total) on the State of Rajasthan, observing that the respondent had been unnecessarily dragged into litigation.
A Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran dismissed the State’s Special Leave Petition against the Rajasthan High Court judgment delivered by Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, holding that the sanctioning process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be influenced by external considerations.
The Supreme Court remarked that the decision-making process “cannot resemble the dilemma in Hamlet’s Soliloquy: ‘to be or not to be'” and observed that the record disclosed “political dictate” in reopening the issue of prosecution sanction.
The case arose from an ACB investigation alleging that Dr. Dev Kant Meena, then Professor and Unit Head (Orthopaedics), JLN Hospital, Ajmer, demanded ₹5,000–6,000 as illegal gratification for conducting a patient’s surgery.
The prosecution alleged that the complainant made part payments before the trap, during which ₹2,000 was allegedly recovered from the drawer of the doctor’s table at his official residence. The ACB thereafter sought prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Upon examining the proposal, the Department of Personnel found the available material insufficient to establish a prima facie case and initially declined to grant prosecution sanction, a decision that received approval up to the level of the Chief Secretary.
State Initially Refused Sanction, Found No Prima Facie Case Against Professor.
The Rajasthan High Court noted that the State Government had initially declined to grant prosecution sanction against Dr. Dev Kant Meena after the Department of Personnel found the evidence collected by the ACB insufficient to establish a prima facie case.
The departmental authorities observed that there was no clear proof of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification and identified several shortcomings in the prosecution’s case. Acting on these findings, the Joint Secretary recommended refusal of sanction, a decision that was subsequently approved by the Principal Secretary and the Chief Secretary, bringing the sanction proceedings to a close at that stage.
Matter Reopened Without Any Fresh Material
The court observed that no additional investigation had been conducted and no fresh evidence had been collected after the earlier refusal. Yet, the authorities reopened the issue and reconsidered the prosecution proposal on the very same material already examined earlier.
The Court held that once the competent authority had refused prosecution sanction, reconsideration was permissible only if fresh evidence emerged. Reopening the matter merely because another authority desired reconsideration was contrary to law.
Department Itself Was Unsure Whether Sanction Should Be Granted
The Court recorded that even during reconsideration, the Department of Personnel itself remained unconvinced.
The departmental file repeatedly recorded that prosecution sanction “may or may not be granted.”
The Court observed that when the competent authority itself is unable to reach a definite conclusion, criminal law requires adoption of the view favourable to the accused. Such uncertainty itself demonstrated lack of satisfaction required for granting prosecution sanction.
The Court also referred to crucial departmental observations which questioned the very foundation of the prosecution case. The Secretary, Department of Personnel specifically recorded:
• there was no pending official work with the doctor on the day of the alleged trap;
• no clear demand for illegal gratification had been established; and
• considering the complainant’s background, the possibility of foul play during the trap could not be ruled out.
Chief Minister Granted Approval Without Discussing Evidence
The Rajasthan High Court had found that although the then Chief Minister eventually approved prosecution sanction, the approval did not address the conflicting departmental opinions or explain why the earlier refusal had been reversed.
It held that the approval merely recorded satisfaction without independently analysing the material on record, rendering the sanction legally unsustainable.
The Supreme Court affirmed this finding, observing that the sanction was the result of external influence rather than an independent application of mind.
SLP Dismissed With ₹1 Lakh Costs.
Finding no reason to interfere with the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal, criticised the review initiated at the instance of the Chief Minister’s Office, and imposed costs of ₹50,000 each before the High Court and the Supreme Court on the State.
The Court directed that the amount be paid within two months.