DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY versus DR. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2012] 3 S.C.R. 52 · Decided: 31-01-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 52 
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY 
v. 
DR. MANMOHAN SINGH AND ANOTHER 
(Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012) 
JANUARY 31, 2012 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s. 19: 
c 
Sanction for prosecution - Prosecution of public servant 
for commission of offence under the 1988 Act - Filing of 
complaint by private citizen - Permissibility of -
Taking 
appropriate decision within the time specified in· *Vineet 
Narain v. Union of India; guidelines issued by the Department 
D of Personnel and Training and eve - Requirement of - On 
facts, illegal grant of licence in 2G Mobile Service at the 
behest of Minister - Representation dated 29. 11. 2008 to the 
Prime Minister for according sanction for prosecution of the 
Minister for offences under the 1988 Act by appellant (private 
E citizen) - Repeated reminders from 30.05.2009 to 13.03.2010 
- Case of the appellant that he had placed sufficient evidence 
- Meanwhile on direction by CVC, CBI registered FIR - 16 
months after the appellant's first representation, intimation to 
the appellant that grant of sanction for prosecution would arise 
only after perusal of the evidence collected by the 
F 
investigating agency and other material provided to the 
·Competent Authority- Writ petition by appellant seeking issue 
of a mandamus to Prime Minister to pass an order for grant 
of sanction for prosecution of the Minister - Dismissed by 
High Court holding that the matter was being investigated by 
G the CBI, and the investigation was in progress -
Subsequently, the Minister resigned, though he continued to 
be a Member of Parliament - On appeal, held: Appellant had 
right to file complaint for prosecution of the Minister as there 
is no bar either in the 1988 Act or Cr. P. C. - It cannot be said 
H 
52 
DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY v. DR. MANMOHAN 
53 
SINGH AND ANR. 
that grant of sanction for prosecution of a public servant arises 
A 
only at the stage of taking cognizance and any request made 
prior to that is premature - While considering grant or refusal 
of sanction, the Competent Authority is to see whether the 
material collected by the complainant or the investigating 
agency prima facie disclose commission of an offence by a 
B 
public servant - It cannot undertake detailed enquiry -
Further, the material placed on record does not show that the 
CBI had registered a case or started investigation at the 
instance of Prime Minister - High Court proceeded under a 
wholly erroneous assumption - Even though the appellant c 
repeatedly wrote letters to Prime Minister highlighting the 
seriousness of the allegations made in his first representation 
and that he had already supplied the facts and documents 
on basis of which sanction could be granted for prosecution 
of the Minister, the concerned officers in the PMO kept the 
D 
matter pending and then took the shelter of the fact that the 
CBI had registered the case and the investigation was 
pending - Officers in the PMO and the Ministry of Law and 
Justice, were duty bound to apprise Prime Minister about 
seriousness of allegations made by the appellant and the 
directions in *Vineet Narain's case that time limit of three 
E 
months for grant of sanction for prosecution must be strictly 
adhered to with one month additional in specified situation, 
as also the guidelines framed by the eve so as to enable 
him to take appropriate decision in the matter - Thus, the 
order of the High Court is set aside - However, since the Court 
F 
of Special Judge, CBI has already taken cognizance of the 
offences allegedly committed by the Minister under the 1988 
Act, no other direction issued - In future every Competent 
Authority to take appropriate action for grant of sanction for 
prosecution of a public servant strictly in accordance with the 
G 
direction in *Vineet Narain v. Union of India and the 
guidelines framed by the eve. 
Previous sanction for prosecution - Necessity of -
Offence allegedly committed by Minister (Public servant) 
H 
54 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 3 S.C.R. 
A under the 1988 Act - Sanction for prosecution - Requirement 
of, even after he resigned from the Council of Ministers, 
though he continued to be a Member of Parliament - Held: 
Sanction for prosecution not necessary as clearly answered 
by the Constitution Bench in **R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay's 
s case. 
Sanction for prosecution ·- Time limit for Competent 
Authority to grant sanction - Held: In terms wit

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