Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has held that there is no concept of deemed sanction under section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another (2025). 

What was the Background of Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another Case? 

• Ms. Suneeti Toteja (appellant) is an employee of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) who was posted on deputation to the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) from 27th April 2016, to 25th July 2019. 
• The case originated from a sexual harassment complaint filed by Dr. Manisha Narayan (Respondent No. 2) against Dr. S.S. Ghonkrokta, the Enforcement Director at FSSAI. 
• Dr. Narayan claimed she was sexually harassed on multiple occasions during her tenure as Associate Director at FSSAI, New Delhi. 
• Following these allegations, Dr. Narayan's mother filed a complaint before FSSAI for action under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). 
• An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted to investigate the allegations. The enquiry was referred to the ICC on 4th December 2014. 
• The ICC submitted its report to the Chief Executive Officer of FSSAI on 22nd June 2015, finding Dr. Ghonkrokta guilty of the alleged offences. 
• Dr. Ghonkrokta later challenged the ICC report before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi by filing Original Application. 
• The appellant was appointed as the Presiding Officer of the ICC at FSSAI on 12th May 2016, after the investigation was complete and the report was submitted. 
• In her capacity as Presiding Officer of the ICC, the appellant filed a counter affidavit on 16th January 2017, in the CAT proceedings on behalf of FSSAI representatives and supposedly the complainant. 
• Dr. Narayan later claimed she never authorized the appellant to file the counter affidavit on her behalf and that it was filed without her knowledge and consent. 
• Subsequently, FSSAI filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking amendment of the counter affidavit, acknowledging that Dr. Narayan wished to represent herself independently. 
• Later, another FIR filed by Dr. Narayan regarding offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, where the appellant was not named in this FIR. 
• The appellant's name first appeared during Dr. Narayan's statement given under Section 164 of CrPC nearly two years after the FIR was filed. 
• In her statement, Dr. Narayan alleged that the appellant had wrongfully represented her before the Tribunal without authorization and had threatened her regarding a transfer from Delhi to Chennai. 
• Based on these allegations, Chargesheet was filed, naming the accused (Accused No. 4) for offences under various sections of the IPC. 
• The investigating authorities claimed they had sought sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the CrPC but proceeded with the chargesheet when sanction was not granted within the stipulated time period. 
• The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, took cognizance of the chargesheet and issued summons against the accused persons. 
• The appellant along with two co-accused, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court, seeking quashing of the chargesheet and the summoning order. 
• The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, dismissed appellant’s petition on 16th November 2022, but directed the trial court to release her on bail. 
• BIS, appellant’s parent department, later issued a letter explicitly refusing sanction for her prosecution after reviewing the case materials. 
• Aggrieved by the decisions of the High court the present appeal has been filed before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the appellant was acting in her official capacity as Presiding Officer of the ICC when she filed the counter affidavit and interacted with the complainant. 
• It held that prior sanction from the competent authority (BIS) was necessary before the Magistrate could take cognizance against her under Section 197 of CrPC. 
• The Court noted that the concept of "deemed sanction" is not contemplated under Section 197 of CrPC, rejecting the prosecution's reliance on the Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy judgments. 
• It observed that the letter requesting sanction was incorrectly sent to FSSAI instead of BIS, causing delay in the competent authority receiving the request. 
• The Court emphasized that BIS had expressly refused sanction for prosecution after reviewing the case materials, finding the appellant "in no way related to the allegations." 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without proper sanction, and the High Court erred in not considering this fatal procedural defect. 
• It ruled that lack of necessary sanction "vitiated the very initiation of the criminal proceeding" against the appellant. 
• The Court determined that a public servant's actions must be directly connected to official duties to require sanction, and this protection is a condition precedent to cognizance of cases against them. 
• It ultimately allowed the appeal and quashed the chargesheet, summoning order, and any consequent steps taken by the trial court against her. 

What is Section 197 of CrPC?  

About: 

• Provisions for Prosecuting Judges, Magistrates, and Public Servants, the same has now been covered under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)  
• This section helps to:   
  • Protects public servants from frivolous prosecutions.   
  • Ensures administrative oversight in legal proceedings.  
  • Balances accountability with protection of official duties. 

Scope of Protection: 

• Applies to Judges, Magistrates, and Public Servants.  
• Covers offences committed while acting in an official capacity.  
• General Prohibition:  
  • No Court shall take cognizance of offences without previous sanction.  
  • Protects public servants from arbitrary prosecution. 
• Sanction Authorities: 
  • Central Government Jurisdiction:  
    • For persons employed in Union/Central Government affairs.  
    • Applies to offences related to Central Government employees. 
  • State Government Jurisdiction:  
    • For persons employed in State Government affairs.  
    • Covers offences related to State Government employees.  

Special Provisions for Armed Forces: 

• Armed Forces Prosecution:  
  • No Court shall take cognizance of offences committed by Armed Forces members.  
  • Requires previous sanction from Central Government.  
• State-Level Forces Provision:  
  • State Government can notify specific public order maintenance forces.  
  • Can direct that Central Government sanction provisions apply to state forces.  

Emergency Provisions: 

• State Emergency Cognizance:  
  • During President's Rule (Article 356 of the Constitution of India,1950).  
  • Special restrictions on prosecuting public order maintenance forces.  
  • Requires Central Government sanction.  
• Historical Sanction Validation:  
  • Invalidates sanctions given during specific historical periods.  
  • Empowers Central Government to accord fresh sanctions.  

Prosecution Management: 

• Prosecution Determination:  
  • Central or State Government can:  
    • Determine the prosecuting person.  
    • Specify prosecution manner.  
    • Define specific offences for prosecution.  
    • Select the trial court. 

Landmark Judgments 

Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998):  

• This landmark case, also known as the "Hawala Case," addressed the independence of investigating agencies like the CBI and established guidelines for their functioning. 
  • The Supreme Court established time limits for various stages of criminal proceedings, including a three-month limit (extendable by three more months for special reasons) for granting sanction for prosecution. 
  • The judgment emphasized that these time limits must be strictly adhered to in order to prevent delays in prosecution, especially in cases involving high-ranking officials. 
  • The Court established a monitoring mechanism to ensure compliance with its directives regarding investigation and prosecution. 

Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012) 

• This case dealt with the issue of sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) in relation to the 2G spectrum allocation case. 
• Justice G.S. Singhvi, in his separate but concurring opinion, suggested guidelines for Parliament to consider, including a provision that if no decision on sanction is taken within the extended time limit, sanction would be deemed granted. 
• The judgment emphasized that sanction should be granted or refused within a reasonable time frame to prevent unnecessary delays in prosecution of corrupt public officials. 
• The Court recommended that the competent authority should take a decision on sanction within three months of the request being made.