MADHYA PRADESH SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 1020 · Decided: 05-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Leave Granted & Allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MADHYA PRADESH SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT 
B 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAD HY A PRADESH AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 5, 2004 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE, S.N. VARIA VA, B.P. SINGH, H.K. SEMA AND 
S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 163-Sanction for prosecution of 
Ministers under 1983 Act and !PC-Grant of-Council of Ministers to aid and 
C advise Governor, however Governor acting in his discretion-Propriety of-
Held: Normal rule is that the Governor is to act on the aid and advice of the 
Council of Ministers and not indepe'!dently or contrary to it-However, there 
are exceptions where as a matter of propriety Governor can act in his own 
discretion-On basis of materials disclosed by the report of Lokayukta prima 
.· D facie case made out against Ministers for prosecution-Decision of Council 
of Ministers refusing to grant sanction ex-facie irrational and based on nort-
consideration of materials on record-Hence, Governor can act on his own 
discretion an.d grant sanction-It is fit case for the Court to exercise its 
jurisdiction under Articles 226, 136 as also 142-Articles 226, 136 and 142-
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1983-Penal Code, 1860. 
E 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of bias-Applicability of, against Council of Ministers refusing 
to grant sanction for prosecuting Ministers-Held: There should be reasonable 
ground for believing likelihood of apparent bias-Actual bias only would lead 
F 
to automatic disqualification-However, doctrine of 'apparent bias' is not 
applicable where collective decision is required to be taken under a statute-
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 163. 
Doctrine of necessity-Application of, to enable Council of Ministers to 
grant sanction for prosecution-Held: Where there is apparent bias and/or 
G decision of Council of Ministers is irrational and based on non-consideration 
of relevant factor, doctrine of necessity is not applicable and Governor would 
exercise his discretion and grant sanction-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 
163. 
A complaint was filed against two Ministers-respondents No.4 in both 
H 
l~O 
c 
M.P. POLICE ESTABLISHMENT v. STATE OF M.P. 
1021 
the appeals, for illegally releasing the land acquired by the Development A 
Authority to its earlier owner. Lokayukta carried out a detailed enquiry 
and held that a case was made out for prosecuting the Ministers under 
section 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption 
Act, 1983 and section 120-B IPC. Sanction was applied for and the Council 
of Ministers refused to grant sanction since no primafacie case was made B 
out against the respondents. However, the Governor granted sanction for 
prosecution since the materials disclosed their complicity. Aggrieved 
Ministers filed Writ Petitions. Single Judge of High Court held that the 
Governor could not act contrary to the aid and advice of Council of 
Ministers for granting sanction for prosecuting the Ministers; that the 
doctrine of bias could not be applied against the entfre Council of C 
Ministers; and that the doctrine of necessity could not be invoked to enable 
the Governor to act in his discretion. Division Bench of High Court upheld 
the order. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant contended that normally the Governor acts on the aid and 
advice of the Council of Ministers but there are cases where Governor is D 
by or under the Constitution required to exercise his function or any of 
them in his discretion and Article 163(2) postulates that there can be 
matters where the Governor can act in his discretion even though the 
Constitution has not expressly so provided; and that bias is likely to 
operate in a subtle manner. 
E 
Respondent No.4-Ministers contended that the Council of Ministers 
after considering all the materials concluded that sufficient material was 
not there to grant sanction; that the Governor was not an Appellate Body 
and could not sit in Appeal over the decision of the Council of Ministers; 
that the theory of bias is not applicable; and that the doctrine of necessity F 
could be invoked to enable the Council of Ministers to take decision. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Under Article 163 of the Constitution, in a matter of G 
grant of sanction to prosecute, the Governor is normally required to act 
on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers and not in his discretion. 
However, an exception may arise whilst considering grant of sanction to 
prosecute a Chief Minister or a Minister where as a matter of propriet
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.