Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India has held that the sanction granted as per Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 (PC Act) cannot be held invalid merely because the cognizance was taken by the court prior to the sanction. 

What was the Background of the Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India Case? 

• In this case the Trail Court took the cognizance of the matter before granting the valid sanction from the competent authority as per Section 19(1) of the PC Act. 
• While the sanction was granted after the cognizance was taken by the Trial Court. 
• The same was appealed to the Jharkhand High Court. 
• The Jharkhand High Court upheld the decision of the Trial court in continuing proceedings without sanction and validated the subsequent sanction granted by the competent authority. 
• The High Court stated that taking cognizance prior to the sanction was a procedural irregularity when, later, sanction was granted by the competent authority. 
• A criminal appeal was made to the Supreme Court by the appellant to dismiss the order of the High Court and to hold the sanction null and void that is granted after the cognizance taken by the court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance without sanction. 
• Further the Supreme Court stated that the Central Bureau of Investigation may file the sanction before the concerned court and accordingly the proceedings can commence if required. 
• However, the Supreme Court did not accept the argument to invalidate the sanction granted after the cognizance taken by the court as Section 19(1) of PC Act is a procedural section. 
• It was also added by the Supreme Court that such sanctions cannot be considered invalid unless there is any miscarriage to justice. 
• Therefore, the Supreme Court held the sanction as Valid. 

What is Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018? 

• Requirement for Previous Sanction  
  • No court can take cognizance of offenses under sections 7, 11, 13, and 15 alleged against a public servant without previous sanction. 
  • Exceptions are provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 
• Sanctioning Authorities  
  • For Union affairs: Central Government  
  • For State affairs: State Government  
  • For others: Authority competent to remove the person from office 
• Process for Requesting Sanction  
  • Requests can be made by police officers, investigation agencies, or other law enforcement authorities. 
  • Other individuals must file a complaint in a competent court first. 
    • The court must not have dismissed the complaint under section 203 of CrPC. 
• Safeguards for Public Servants  
  • Public servants must be given an opportunity to be heard before sanction is granted (for non-law enforcement requests). 
• Timeframe for Sanction Decision  
  • The appropriate authority should try to decide within 3 months of receiving the proposal. 
  • An additional month may be granted if legal consultation is required. 
• Guidelines for Sanction  
  • The Central Government may prescribe guidelines for sanctioning prosecution. 
• Definition of Public Servant  
  • Includes those who have ceased to hold office during which the offense is alleged. 
  • Includes those holding a different office at the time of prosecution. 
• Clarification on Sanctioning Authority  
  • In case of doubt, sanction should be given by the authority competent to remove the public servant at the time of the alleged offense. 
• Legal Proceedings and Sanctions  
  • Absence or errors in sanction won't reverse court decisions unless a failure of justice has occurred. 
  • Courts cannot stay proceedings due to errors in sanction unless it results in a failure of justice. 
  • No stay of proceedings on other grounds or revision of interlocutory orders. 
• Determining Failure of Justice  
  • Courts must consider whether objections could have been raised earlier in the proceedings. 
• Explanations  
  • "Error" includes competency of the sanctioning authority. 
  • "Sanction" includes requirements for prosecution by specified authorities or persons. 

Case Law 

• Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2012):   
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that if the trial has proceeded to conclusion and resulted in a finding or sentence, the same should not be lightly interfered with by the appellate or the revisional court simply because there was some omission, error or irregularity in the order sanctioning prosecution under Section 19(1).   
  • It was also observed by the court that if the trial Court proceeds, despite the invalidity attached to the sanction order, the same shall be deemed to be non-est in the eyes of law and shall not forbid a second trial for the same offences, upon grant of a valid sanction for such prosecution.