Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held that prior sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act is mandatory to prosecute police officers for actions reasonably connected to their official duties, even if such acts were in excess of their authority.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram (2025). 

What was the Background of G.C. Manjunath & Ors. v. Seetaram, (2025) Case? 

• The case revolves around a complaint filed by Seetaram against police officers G.C. Manjunath and others, alleging abuse of authority, assault, wrongful confinement, and intimidation during investigations conducted against him. 
• Seetaram, who had been declared a rowdy sheeter in 1990, alleged that on April 10, 1999, three police officers trespassed into his home, forcibly removed him, and subjected him to assault and torture at the Mahalakshmi Layout Police Station. 
• The complainant alleged that on April 11, 1999, the officers forced him to hold a slate with his name written on it, photographed him, and later produced him before a Magistrate after registering false cases in Crime Nos. 137 and 138 of 1999. 
• Seetaram further alleged that on October 27, 1999, certain officers again assaulted him, wrongfully seized his personal belongings including a gold chain, wrist watch, and cash, and confined him at the police station. 
• The complainant claimed he sustained grievous injuries during these incidents, including a broken tooth, which was supported by medical evidence including wound certificates and X-ray reports. 
• Seetaram filed a private complaint in 2007 against the officers for offences under Sections 326, 358, 500, 501, 502, 506(b) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).  
• The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the accused officers, who challenged this order on the ground that prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC and Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act was required before prosecution. 
• The criminal revision petition filed by the accused was dismissed by the Sessions Court, and subsequently, their criminal petition before the High Court was also dismissed. 
• During the pendency of proceedings, three of the five accused officers passed away, and the remaining two officers (accused Nos. 2 and 5) had retired from service, being 71 and 64 years old respectively.

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act bars the institution of suits or prosecutions against police officers for acts done under the colour of or in excess of official duty, unless prior sanction of the Government is obtained. 
• The Court held that Section 197 CrPC similarly provides that courts cannot take cognizance of offences alleged to have been committed by public servants while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty without prior sanction from the appropriate Government. 
• The Court noted that the protection under these provisions extends to acts done ostensibly in excess of authority, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions. 
• The Court emphasized that even if a police officer exceeds the bounds of duty, the protective shield continues to apply if there is a reasonable connection between the act complained of and the officer's official functions. 
• The Supreme Court concluded that the allegations against the accused officers, though grave, fell within the ambit of "acts done under colour of, or in excess of, such duty or authority" and therefore, the Magistrate erred in taking cognizance without the requisite prior sanction. 
• Considering the age of the retired officers and the fact that the alleged incidents dated back to 1999-2000, the Court held that no meaningful purpose would be served by prolonging the criminal prosecution against them. 

What is Section 218 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS)? 

• Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 requires prior government sanction before courts can take cognizance of offenses allegedly committed by judges, magistrates, or public servants (who cannot be removed without government approval) while performing official duties. 
• For Union affairs, sanction must come from the Central Government; for State affairs, from the State Government - except during President's Rule under Article 356, when Central Government sanction is required. 
• Members of Armed Forces also require prior Central Government sanction for prosecution of alleged offenses committed during official duties. 
• State Governments can extend this protection to certain classes of forces maintaining public order, substituting State Government sanction for Central Government sanction. 
• During periods of President's Rule under Article 356, only Central Government sanction is valid for prosecuting members of forces maintaining public order - any State Government sanctions during this period are invalid. 
• A specific provision nullifies any State Government sanctions given between August 20, 1991, and the enactment of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1991, for offenses during President's Rule. 
• The appropriate government (Central or State) can determine who conducts the prosecution, how it proceeds, for which offenses, and can specify which court will hold the trial.