Immunity for public servants not to shield the corrupt: SC
The Supreme Court has made it explicit that the requirement of prior sanction to prosecute public servants is “not a shield for corrupt practices”
The Supreme Court has outlined the scope of immunity granted to public servants, making it explicit that the requirement of prior sanction to prosecute them is “not a shield for corrupt practices” and that the immunity cannot be misused by public servants to camouflage illegal acts as duties performed under the colour of their office.
Also Read: Supreme Court refuses ‘special treatment’ to CCI in probe against Amazon, Flipkart
A bench, comprising justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasised that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), cannot be invoked to protect illegal actions and that immunity is not an instrument to cover up acts that are patently unlawful and unrelated to any legitimate exercise of official functions.
Also Read: Supreme Court restrains courts from passing orders on pleas seeking mosque surveys
“The object behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC is to protect responsible public servants against institution of possibly false or vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed by them while they are acting or purporting to act in their official capacity...The provision must not be abused by public servants to camouflage the commission of a crime under the supposed colour of public office,” held the bench.
Also Read: Ban on firecrackers to be permanent, Delhi govt tells Supreme Court
It added that the benefit of the provision must not be extended to public officials who try to take undue advantage of their position and misuse the authority vested in them for committing acts which are otherwise not permitted in law. “In such circumstances, the acts committed must be considered dehors the duties which a public servant is required to discharge or perform...The purpose behind the enactment of Section 197 CrPC must not be to shield corrupt officials,” the bench said.
The ruling was delivered in the context of a case involving Madhya Pradesh police officials accused of registering a false First Information Report (FIR) to fabricate an alibi for an individual charged with murder in Uttar Pradesh. The judgment stressed that such serious allegations necessitated a proper trial to ascertain whether the accused public servants were acting within the legitimate boundaries of their official duties or were indulging in criminal misconduct.
The judgment reinforced that the immunity provision aims to foster an environment where honest public servants can carry out their duties without fear of unwarranted legal harassment. “It is an assurance to honest and sincere officers so that they can perform their public duties honestly, to the best of their ability, and in furtherance of public interest without being demoralised,” held the bench.
The 77-page judgment drew a clear distinction between acts genuinely performed in the line of duty and those that are manifestly illegal, declaring that the latter cannot be camouflaged under the guise of official actions.
To clarify the applicability of Section 197 CrPC, the Supreme Court identified several guiding principles. First, there must be a reasonable and discernible connection between the act in question and the public servant’s official duties. If the act is entirely extraneous to official functions, the protection of Section 197 CrPC cannot be claimed. Second, the nature of the act must be scrutinised. “The mere fact that an opportunity to commit an offence is furnished by the official position is not enough to attract the protection,” noted the judgment. Acts of malfeasance, collusion, or fabrication, even if carried out in an official capacity, fall outside the ambit of the immunity provision. Lastly, the trial court must carefully evaluate the facts of each case to determine if the actions in question were indeed performed in the discharge of official duties.
The judgment assumed particular significance in light of the facts of the case before it. The police officials involved had allegedly registered an FIR in Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, with the apparent intent of creating a false alibi for a murder accused who was implicated in a case in Firozabad, Uttar Pradesh. The Supreme Court highlighted glaring inconsistencies in the narrative, including the improbability of the accused being present simultaneously at two locations separated by a distance of 160 kilometers.
In its analysis, the bench observed: “It can be no part of the official duty of a public official to lodge a bogus case and fabricate evidence. Such acts have no rational nexus with official duty and fall outside the scope of Section 197 CrPC.” The court concluded that permitting the immunity provision to cover such conduct would undermine its very purpose and dilute accountability in public service.
While directing the trial court to proceed with the case, the Supreme Court emphasised the need for expeditious resolution, setting a timeline of one year for the trial’s conclusion. The court left the question of whether sanction for prosecution was required open to re-evaluation, allowing the trial court to address it should evidence later emerge indicating that the acts in question were genuinely linked to official duties.
The Supreme Court also criticised the high court’s decision to quash the proceedings at a preliminary stage, stating: “In cases where there is legitimate doubt as regards whether sanction for prosecution is required, the progress of the trial must not be hampered or unnecessarily delayed.” It underscored that premature intervention in such cases undermines the pursuit of justice and prevents a comprehensive examination of the facts.
By setting clear boundaries for the applicability of this immunity, the Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to guide future cases involving allegations against public servants, ensuring that the provision is neither misused nor unjustly withheld.