NDLI: Vijay Rajmohan Vs. State Represented By The Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Prevention of Corruption Act 1981 – s.19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act 2003
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s. 19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 – Whether an order of the Appointing Authority granting sanction for prosecution of a public servant u/s. 19 of the PC Act, would be rendered illegal on the ground of acting as per dictation if it consults the Central Vigilance Commission for its decision – Held: The position of law and the legal regime obtained by virtue of the five legislations, the Cr.P.C, DSPE Act, PC Act, CVC Act, and Lokpal Act on the subject of corruption, operates as integrated scheme – The five legislations must be read together to enable the authorities to sub-serve the common purpose and objectives underlying these legislations – CVC, constituted under the CVC Act is specifically entrusted with the duty and function of providing expert advice on the subject – It may be necessary for the appointing authority to call for and seek the opinion of the CVC before it takes any decision on the request for sanction for prosecution – The statutory scheme under which the appointing authority could call for, seek and consider the advice of the CVC can neither be termed as acting under dictation nor a factor which could be referred to as an irrelevant consideration – Opinion of the CVC is only advisory – It is nevertheless a valuable input in the decision-making process of the appointing authority – Final decision of the appointing authority must be of its own by application of independent mind – Thus, there is no illegality in the action of the appointing authority, the DoPT, if it calls for, refers, and considers the opinion of the CVC before it takes its final decision on the request for sanction for prosecuting a public servant – In the present case, on examining the correspondence and the long-drawn communications between the CBI, the DoPT, and the CVC, it is found that the inquiry made by the appointing authority, the DoPT, was only for soliciting further information, and particularly the opinion given by CVC is also advisory – Sanction order of the DoPT dated 24.07.2017 is an independent decision of the department that was taken based on the material before it – Plea of the appellant that the order of sanction suffers from illegality due to non-application of mind or acting under dictation, not accepted.Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s. 19 – Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 – s.8(1)(f) – Whether the period of three months (extendable by one more month for legal consultation - As per the 2018 Amendment through the 2nd Proviso to s. 19(1) of the PC Act) for the Appointing Authority to decide upon a request for sanction is mandatory or not and whether the criminal proceedings can be quashed if the decision is not taken within the mandatory period – Held: The period of three months, extended by one more month for legal consultation, is mandatory – Consequence of noncompliance with this mandatory requirement shall not be quashing of the criminal proceeding for that very reason – The competent authority shall be accountable for the delay and be subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC u/s. 8(1)(f) of the CVC Act.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 197 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1981 – s. 97 – Held: The public policy behind providing immunity from prosecution without the sanction of the State is to insulate the public servant against harassment and malicious prosecution – It is for this very reason that good faith clauses are incorporated in statutes extending protection to officers exercising statutory duties in good faith – Statutory provisions requiring sanction before prosecution either u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. or u/ s. 97 of the PC Act also intend to serve the very same purpose of protecting a public servant – However, the said protection is neither a shield against dereliction of duty nor an absolute immunity against corrupt practices – The limited immunity or bar is only subject to a sanction by the appointing authority – Grant of sanction being an exercise of executive power is subject to the standard principles of judicial review.Administrative Law – Principle of accountability – Held: Principle of accountability is considered as a cornerstone of the human rights framework – It is a crucial feature that must govern the relationship between “duty bearers” in authority and “right holders” affected by their actions – Three essential constituent dimensions of Accountability- (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability and (iii) enforceability – Discussed.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
Neutral Citation	2022 INSC 1066
Petitioner	Vijay Rajmohan
Respondent	State Represented By The Inspector Of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
SCR	[2022] 19 S.C.R. 563
Judgement Date	2022-09-11
Case Number	1746

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Vijay Rajmohan Vs. State Represented By The Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Please Log-in to view this content

R. Janakiraman Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, Cbi, Spe, Madras

State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu Vs. J. Doraiswamy Etc.

M. Natarajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Spe, Cbi, Acb Chennai

Ab. Bhaskara Rao Vs. Inspector of Police, Cbi Visakhapatnam

P. Nallammal Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Station House Officer, Cbi/acb/bangalore Vs. B.a. Srinivasan and Anr.

State Represented By Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. M. Subrahmanyam

Kootha Perumal Vs. State Tr. Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption

R. Sundararajan Vs. State By D.s.p., Spe, Cbi, Chennai

Vijay Rajmohan Vs. State Represented By The Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Vijay Rajmohan Vs. State Represented By The Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

R. Janakiraman Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police, Cbi, Spe, Madras

State Represented By The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tamil Nadu Vs. J. Doraiswamy Etc.

M. Natarajan Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Spe, Cbi, Acb Chennai

Ab. Bhaskara Rao Vs. Inspector of Police, Cbi Visakhapatnam

P. Nallammal Vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police

Station House Officer, Cbi/acb/bangalore Vs. B.a. Srinivasan and Anr.

State Represented By Inspector of Police Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. M. Subrahmanyam

Kootha Perumal Vs. State Tr. Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption

R. Sundararajan Vs. State By D.s.p., Spe, Cbi, Chennai

Vijay Rajmohan Vs. State Represented By The Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu