Sanction under Section 197 CrPC

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025) allowed an IAS officer's appeal and set aside the Patna High Court's decision, holding that the sanction order was vitiated for being passed without proper application of mind and the supplementary chargesheet was filed after an inordinate delay. 

What was the Background of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu v. State of Bihar (2025) Case? 

• An FIR was lodged in Saharsa, Bihar in 2005 against the appellant who was serving as District Magistrate-cum-Licensing Authority during 2002-2005. 
• The allegations were that the appellant had issued arms licenses to fictitious and physically unfit persons without proper police verification. 
• The initial investigation conducted in 2006 cleared the appellant, terming the allegations against him as "false." 
• In 2009, the Chief Judicial Magistrate permitted further investigation into the matter. 
• After a gap of 11 years, in 2020, the investigating agency filed a supplementary chargesheet naming the officer as an accused. 
• Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC was granted in 2022. 
• The appellant challenged the proceedings before the Patna High Court, which refused to quash the FIR on the grounds of vitiated sanction order. 
• The appellant then approached the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court held that a sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)) to prosecute a public servant cannot rest on vague or mechanical assertions and must reflect a clear application of mind by the competent authority. 
• The bench observed that "Application of mind by the authorities granting or denying sanction must be easily visible including consideration of the evidence placed before it in arriving at the conclusion." 
• The Court noted that the avowed object of sanctions being granted before cognizance is to ensure that the threat of criminal prosecution does not hang over the heads of officials in discharge of their public duty. 
• The judgment stated that if sanction is based on vague statements such as "on perusal of the documents and evidences mentioned in Case Diary available", this protection would be obliterated. 
• The Court observed that while the sanction order touched upon the essence of Section 197 CrPC and the fact that the appellant is a public servant who would be covered thereby, "The substance of why a sanction is required was however entirely missed by the sanctioning authority." 
• The bench declared the sanction order as "bad in law and must be set aside" and consequently quashed all consequential actions including the order taking cognizance. 
• The Court condemned the "unreasonably long period" of 11 years taken for further investigation, stating that the appellant had "the cloud of a criminal investigation hanging over him for all these years." 
• Reaffirming that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution encompasses the investigation stage, the Court held that "investigations cannot continue endlessly." 
• The bench concluded that the accused "cannot be made to suffer endlessly with this threat of continuing investigation," and held that the delay itself was a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. 
• The Court set aside the Patna High Court's decision and allowed the appeal. 

What is Section 218 of BNSS? 

Section 218 - Prosecution of Judges and Public Servants 

Scope of Protection: 

• Applies to Judges, Magistrates, and public servants not removable from office without government sanction. 
• Protection covers offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of official duty. 
• Courts cannot take cognizance of such offences without previous sanction. 

Sanction Requirements: 

• Central Government sanction required for persons employed in connection with affairs of the Union. 
• State Government sanction required for persons employed in connection with affairs of a State. 
• During President's Rule (Article 356), Central Government sanction required even for State employees, 

Time Limit for Sanction Decision: 

• Government must decide on sanction request within 120 days from receipt. 
• If no decision is taken within 120 days, sanction is deemed to have been accorded automatically. 

Exceptions - No Sanction Required: 

• For offences under specific sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: Sections 197, 198, 63, 66, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 141, or 351. 
• Exception also provided under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. 

Armed Forces Protection: 

• No cognizance without Central Government's previous sanction for Armed Forces members. 
• State Government can extend this protection to forces maintaining public order through notification. 
• During President's Rule, Central Government sanction required for state forces as well. 

Prosecution Control: 

• Central/State Government may determine who will conduct prosecution. 
• Government may specify the manner of prosecution and specific offences to be prosecuted. 
• Government may designate the court where trial will be held.