Sanction process for prosecution of public servant will become a ‘dead letter’ if order is disturbed without reason: Kerala High Court

A single judge bench of Judge Bechu Kurian Thomas rejected the subpoena, stating that there was no reason to interfere with the government’s order not to allow sanctions for prosecution. It said:

“The discretionary power to impose sanctions or not rests absolutely with the sanctioning authority. If the discretion of the sanctioning authority is not affected by extraneous considerations and the authority has independently applied its views to arrive at the conclusion, then this Court should not interfere with an order granting or refusing a sanction. The purpose of the sanction itself is to protect an official from frivolous prosecutions; the said process would become a dead letter if the orders of the sanctioning authority are disturbed, without any rhyme or reason.

The first and second petitioners, brothers of the deceased, alleged that the death of their brother in 2001 was caused by police brutality by a Sub-Inspector of Police (third respondent) of Nilambur Police Station.

They alleged that the deceased who was standing at a bus stop was attacked by the third accused with his lathi. It is further alleged that the deceased collapsed and was rushed to hospital but his condition deteriorated, eventually leading to his death.

A private complaint was filed seeking sanctions to prosecute the third defendant as the alleged misconduct occurred in the performance of his official duties. The government refused to grant sanctions, which were challenged in the writ petition.

The petitioner argued that the deceased died as a result of a brutal attack by the police and sanctions were necessary for the prosecution of the third accused. It is also stated that a pending police case against the third respondent is different from a private complaint requiring sanction.

On the other hand, the prosecutor submitted that the sanctioning authority took note of all relevant factors before prosecuting the third respondent. The respondents also stated that the deceased died due to myocardial infarction and there was no injury on his body except some superficial scars. It is also argued that once the sanctions authority refuses to authorize sanctions to prosecute an official, the courts should not intervene.

The Court noted that obtaining sanctions for the prosecution of a public official is a method of protecting public officials from unnecessary prosecutions. It states that sanctions are used to discourage frivolous and vexatious prosecutions against public officials.

Relying on precedents, the Court stated that an order passed by the sanctioning authority after considering all the factors and with due application of mind cannot be lightly interfered with through the process of judicial review.

Court has stated“Once it has been determined that a criminal offense has been committed while acting in the exercise of official duties, the order of the sanctioning authority granting sanctions or refusing sanctions should generally not be interfered with in the exercise of the power of judicial review. The well-established principle that not the decision but only the decision-making process is taken into consideration while exercising the power of judicial review should restrain this Court from interfering with orders of the sanctioning authority without any legal basis. Caution should be exercised when considering such challenges to sanctions authority orders.”

The Court also noted that the FIR was registered against the police officers under Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons) read with Section 34 (general intention) of the IPC and that the prosecution is pending is at the Magistrate Court.

The court therefore rejected the request for a summons.

Case title: Appu Nair and Anr. against the State of Kerala and others

Counsel for the petitioners: Advocate Rajit

Counsel for respondents: Public Prosecutor CK Suresh, Advocates BGHarindranath, S.Rajeev, Maria Paul, Thomas J Anakkallunkal, Nirmal Cheriyan Varghese, Abishek Johny, Ayaraman S., V.Vinay, MSAneer, Anilkumar CR, Sarath KP, Prerith Philip Joseph , K.S.Kiran Krishnan

Case number: WP(C) NO. 6502 OF 2019

Visa: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705