New Delhi, July 31 (IANS) The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the Rajasthan government for reviewing its earlier decision refusing sanction to prosecute a public servant in a corruption case without any fresh material, saying the decision-making process under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot resemble the dilemma in ‘Hamlet’s Soliloquy’ and that the record disclosed “blatant” political interference.
Dismissing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the State of Rajasthan, a Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision quashing the sanction granted to prosecute a government doctor in an alleged bribery case.
“The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in ‘Hamlet’s Soliloquy: to be or not to be’. If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench observed.
The case arose from allegations that the respondent doctor had demanded and accepted bribe money from the relatives of a patient for a knee surgery in 2017.
While the Anti-Corruption Bureau laid a trap and recovered Rs 2,000 from a drawer at the doctor’s official residence, senior officers of the Rajasthan government had initially found the evidence insufficient to justify prosecution.
In its order, the apex court recorded that both the Joint Secretary and the Principal Secretary in the Department of Personnel had concluded that the available material did not establish a clear demand for bribe.
They had also found the recovery of money from a locked drawer, which had to be broken open, to be suspicious, particularly as the surgery had already been completed a day earlier.
The administrative authorities had also taken note of the absence of any complaint from the patient or family members, inconsistencies in the complainant’s claim of being a relative, and reports suggesting that members of a political party had publicised the trap operation.
Despite these findings, the matter was sent back for reconsideration by the Joint Secretary in the Chief Minister’s Office, who asserted that the recovery of money and the handwash test sufficiently established acceptance of bribe, even though no fresh material had emerged.
The apex court held that there was “absolutely no occasion” to revisit the earlier decision on the basis of the same material.
Reiterating settled law, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench said that refusal of sanction for prosecution cannot be reviewed merely because another authority forms a different opinion on the same record.
“A mere change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for review or reconsideration of an earlier order, refusing to grant sanction,” the top court said, relying on its earlier decisions.
It added that reconsideration would be permissible only if fresh material was collected by the investigating agency and the sanctioning authority independently applied its mind to such new evidence.
The judgment also stressed that where two views are possible while deciding whether to sanction prosecution of a public servant, the view favouring the officer should ordinarily prevail.
“It is trite that, when there are two views possible, especially in proceeding with a criminal prosecution against a public servant, the view exonerating the officer should be taken,” the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench observed.
Reiterating that sanction serves as a safeguard against unwarranted prosecution, it said, “Sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty.”
The Supreme Court said the facts of the case demonstrated that the review of the earlier decision was prompted by external influence from the Chief Minister’s Office, resulting in unnecessary harassment of a public servant.
“We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and we deprecate such instances bringing out interference leading to unnecessary harassment of public officers discharging public duties; which is sought to be avoided by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,” it said.
Expressing disapproval of the state government’s decision to challenge the High Court verdict before the apex court, the Justice Pardiwala-led Bench observed: “The petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily to the High Court by the review, prompted by the office of the CM. The State at least should have rested content, when the highest Constitutional Court within its boundaries interfered with a patently illegal and blatantly tainted order of sanction.”
Dismissing the state government’s SLP, the Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs 50,000 each for proceedings before the High Court and the apex court, directing the amount to be paid within two months.
–IANS
pds/rad
