Supreme Court: The bench comprising of T.S. Thakur and A.K. Goel, dealing with a petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which mandates prior sanction for prosecution in cases relating to corruption, held that requirement of sanction has salutary object of protecting an innocent public servant against unwarranted and mala fide prosecution. Having said that there can be no tolerance to corruption which undermines core constitutional values of justice, equality, liberty and fraternity, the Court, however, noted that need to prosecute and punish the corrupt cannot be a ground to deny protection to the honest.
In the present case, where petitioners and respondents were represented by D. K. Garg and V.G. Pragasam, respectively, it was argued by the petitioner, who happens to be a practicing advocate in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, that the provision for sanction as a condition precedent for prosecution is being used by the Government of India and the State Governments to protect dishonest and corrupt politicians and Government officials and that the discretion to grant sanction has been misused.
The Court, taking note of various judgments of this Court, held that a fine balance has to be maintained between need to protect a public servant against mala fide prosecution on the one hand and the object of upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the public servant against whom prima facie material in support of allegation of corruption exists, on the other hand. It was held that mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground to declare a provision, otherwise valid, to be unconstitutional and that the exercise of power has to be regulated to effectuate the purpose of law. Manzoor Ali Khan v. Union of India, Writ Petition (C) No. 305 of 2007, decided on 06.08.2014
To read the full judgment, refer to SCCOnLine
