CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR . versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 77 · Decided: 06-10-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RUMA PAL

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION AND ANR . 
A 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 6, 2005 
[RUMA PAL, ARIJIT PASA YAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 197-Public servant-
Protection under S.197-Scope of-Held: S.197 does not extend its protective 
cover to every act or omission done by a public servant in service but restricts C 
its scope of operation to only those acts or omissions which are done by a 
public servant in discharge of official duty-If on facts, it is prima facie 
found that the act or omission for which the accused was charged had 
reasonable connection with discharge of his duty then it must be held to be 
official to which applicability of S.197 cannot be disputed~Words and 
Phrases-"Official duty"-Meaning of 
D 
Public 
Interest 
Litigation-Public 
employment-Sensitive 
appointments-Respondent No.3 had a tainted reputation-Corruption cases 
pending against him in High Court-Commission appointed by this Court-
Subsequent appointment of Respondent No. 3 as Chief Secretary of the State, 
whi(e report of the Commission was still awaited-Propriety of-Held, E 
improper-Postings of officers holding sensitive posts should be done in 
transparent manner-It was really desirable for the State Government to 
steer clear of controversy and not to post respondent No.3 as the Chief 
Secretary-Direction to State Government to transfer respondent No. 3 to 
some other post in the cadre/grade to which she belonged-Administrative F 
Law-Government action-Transparency-Need for. 
Respondent No.3 had a tainted reputation and corruption cases were 
pending against her in High Court. This Court appointed Mr. K.T. 
Thomas, a retired Supreme Court Judge to look into various aspects 
including the correctness of the decision of the State Government to drop G 
disciplinary proceedings against Respondent No.3. While report of the 
Commission was still awaited, Respondent No.3 was appointed as Chief 
Secretary of the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
Questions pertaining to propriety of the said appointment as also 
77 
H 
78 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A requirement or otherwise of sanction in terms of Section 197 CrPC arose 
., 
for consideration in the I.A. filed in the present writ petition. 
Disposing of the I.A., the Court 
'• 
HELD: 1.1. The protection given under Section 197 CrPC is to· 
B 
protect responsible public servants against the institution of possibly 
vexatious criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have been committed 
by them while they are acting or purporting to act as public servants. The 
policy of the legislature is to afford adequate protection to public servants 
to ensure that they are not prosecuted for anythb1g done by them in the 
discharge of their official duties without reasonable cause, and if sanction 
c is granted, to confer on the Government, if they choose to exercise it, 
complete control of the prosecution. This protection has certain limits and 
is available only when the alleged act done by the public servant is 
reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not 
merely a cloak for doing the objectionable act. If in doing his official duty, 
D 
he acted in excess of his duty, but there is a reasonable connection between 
the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be a 
sufficient ground to deprive the public servant from the protection. The 
question is not as to the nature of the offence such as whether the alleged 
offence co!}tained an element nr.'cessarily dependent upon the offender 
being a public servant, but whether it was committed by a public servant 
E acting or purporting to act as such in the discharge of his official capacity. 
[83-E, F, G) 
1.2. Before Section 197 can be invoked, it must be shown that the 
official concerned was accused of an offence alleged to have been 
committed by him whiJ.e acting or purporting to act in the discharge of 
F his official duties. It is not the duty which requires examination so much 
as the act, because the official act can be performed both in the discharge 
of the official duty as well as in dereliction of it. The act must fall within 
the scope and range of the official duties of the public servant concerned. 
It is the quality of the act which is important and the protection of this 
G section is available if the act falls within the scope and range of his official 
duty. There cannot be any universal rule to determine wh

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.