MANZOOR ALI KHAN versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 7 S.C.R. 569 · Decided: 06-08-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 7 S.C.R. 569 
MANZOOR ALI KHAN 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 305 of 2007) 
AUGUST 06, 2014 
[T. S. THAKUR AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.] 
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988: 
A 
B 
s. 19 - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution -
C 
Writ petition seeking to declare the provision as 
unconstitutional on the ground that the provision is being used 
to protect dishonest and corrupt politicians and Government 
officials ..:.. Direction sought for prosecution of all cases 
registered and investigated under the provisions of the Act D 
without sanction as required u/s 19 -
Held: Requirement of 
sanction uls 19 has salutary object of protecting an innocent 
public servant against unwarranted and ma/a fide prosecution 
-
Mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground to declare a 
provision, otherwise valid, to be unconsa.tutional -
The 
E 
exercise of power has to be regulated to effectuate the 
purpose of Jaw -
Requirement of sanction is not 
unconstitutional -
Competent authority has to take a decision 
on the issue of sanction expeditiously -
A fine balance has 
to be maintained between need to protect a public servant 
F 
against ma/a fide prosecution 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 -Therefore, no further directions are 
necessary. 
G 
The instant writ petition was filed seeking to declare 
s. 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act) 
569 
H 
570 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 
A as unconstitutional and to direct prosecution of all cases 
registered and investigated under the provisions of the 
Act against politicians including M.L.As and M.Ps and the 
Government officials without sanction as required u/s 19 
of the Act. It was submitted that the provision was being 
B used to protect dishonest and corrupt politicians and 
Government officials. 
The question for consideration before the Court was 
as to whether s.19 of th1e PC Act was unconstitutional and 
c ,whether any further direction was called for in public 
interest and for enforc•~ment or fundamental rights. 
Disposing of the writ petition, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Requirement of sanction u/s 19 of the 
D Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has salutary object of 
protecting an innocent public servant against 
unwarranted and ma/a fide prosecution. Undoubtedly, 
there can be no tolerance to corruption which 
undermines core constitutional values of justice, equality, 
E liberty and fraternity. At the same time, need to prosecute 
and punish the corrupt is no ground to deny protection 
to the honest. Mere p,ossibility of abuse cannot be a 
ground to declare a provision, otherwise valid, to be 
unconstitutional. The exercise of power has to be 
F regulated to effectuate the purpose of law. [para 8) [577-
A-C] 
1.2. The observations made in the case of 
Subramanian Swamy* fully cover the issues raised in the 
G instant petition. Thus, while it is not possible to hold that 
the requirement of sanction is unconstitutional, the 
competent authority has to take a decision on the issue 
I of sanction. expeditiously. A fine balance has to be 
maintained between need to protect a public servant 
H against ma/a fide prosecution and the object of 
MANZOOR ALI KHAN v. UNION OF INDIA 
571 
upholding the probity in public life in prosecuting the 
A 
public servant against whom prima facie material in 
support of allegation of corruption exists. In view of the · 
law laid down by this Court, no further directions are 
necessary. [para 12-13] [587-G-H; 588-A-B] 
·*Subramanian Swamy vs. Manmohan Singh & Anr., 
(2012] 3 SCR 52 = (2012) 3 SCC 64 -
relied on. 
Vineet Narain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. 1996 
B 
(1) SCR 1053 = (1996) 2 SCC 199; and Vineet Narain& Ors. 
C 
vs. Union of India & Anr., 1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 595 = (1998) 
1 SCC 226, Common Cause, a registered Society vs. Union 
of India & Ors. 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 373 = (1996) 6 SCC 
593, Shiv Sagar Tiwari vs. Union of India & Ors. 1996 (8) 
Suppl. SCR 651 = (1996) 6 SCC 599, M.C. Mehta (Taj 
D 
Corridor Scam) vs. Union of India & Ors. 2006 (9) Suppl. 
SCR 683 = (2007) 1 SCC 110, Prakash Singh Badal & Anr. 
vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 197, = 2007 
(1) SCC 1, Lalu Prasad @ Latu Prasad Yadav vs. State of 
Bihar Thr. CBl(AHD) Patna 2006 (10) Suppl. SCR 251=2007 
E · 
(1) SCC 49 and K. Karunakaran vs. State of Kera/a 200
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.