Target CLAT 2026 (Crash Course) Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   Judiciary Foundation Course (Indore) Starting On: 22 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Lucknow Starting On: 8 May 2025 (Admission Open)   |   CLAT Karol Bagh Starting On: 12 May 2025 (Admission Open)
         









Home / Indian Penal Code

Criminal Law

R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, 1984 AIR 991

    «    »
 21-Jun-2024

Introduction 

  • This case deals with the scope of a public servant and competent authority to give sanctions for the prosecution of a public servant. 

Facts 

  • In this case, the respondent was the Chief Minister of Maharashtra against whom the complaint was filed by a member of Bhartiya Janta Party. 
    • The member approached the Governor of the State for his approval to bring the suit against the Respondent. 
    • Under Section 167 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Section 6 of Prevention of Corruption Act, (PCA) 1947. 
  • Another complaint was filed by the petitioner to the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bombay against the respondent. 
    • Based on section 161, Section 165, Section 384, Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5 of PCA, 1947. 
    • However, the application was rejected by the magistrate as it lacks approval for prosecution. 
    • A revision was filed by the applicant in the Bombay High Court which led to the appeal's dismissal. 
    • The respondent resigned from his post in the year 1882. 
  • Special Leave was filed to the Supreme Court by the State against the order of the High Court which was also rejected. 
  • A fresh complaint was filed against the respondent with more accusations for which a bench of special judge was set up by the High Court  
    • A process was issued by the Special Judge. 
    • Respondent objected the application on the ground of jurisdiction which was then rejected by the Court and 3 special judges were appointed to hear the case. 
    • The sanction was given by the Governor on the day the order passed against the State. 
    • The Special Judge discharged the respondent on the ground that whether he ceases as Minister, but he is still an MLA and the authority to give sanction is Maharashtra Legislative Assembly. 
    • MLA is a public servant and without sanction no legal proceedings can be conducted against him.  
  • Appeal was filed against the order of the special judge under Article 136 of the constitution.                                     

Issues Involved  

  • Whether MLA is a public servant or not? 
  • Whether Governor is a competent authority to give sanction for prosecution against MLA if he is a public servant or not? 
  • Whether the Supreme Court can transfer the case of special judge or not? 

Observations 

  • The 5 Judge bench observed that an MLA is not a public servant. 
    • MLA does not receive his remuneration from government and does not fall under the scope of Section 21 of IPC. 
    • The case was taken into cognizance after the resignation of respondent from his post of Chief Minister and therefore not a public servant. 
  •  In this case the competent authority for giving sanctions for prosecution is not clearly highlighted. 
  •  Supreme Court Suo moto withdrawn the case from special judge and transferred it to High Court for its disposal from the incident of discharge of the respondent. 

Conclusion 

The court held that no sanction is required to prosecute an MLA as MLA is not a public servant and transferred the case from the special judge to the High Court by dismissing the order of the Special Judge.