Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Devendra S. Doctor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal to accord sanction to prosecute a Special Judge of the Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The refusal was based on the opinion of the learned Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, dated 3.2.2012. The petitioner raised three grounds: first, that the competent authority for considering the sanction proposal should be the Governor, not the Chief Justice; second, that the Chief Justice formed the opinion without directing any enquiry into the complaint; and third, that the Chief Justice's opinion was unreasoned, being merely 'rejected'. The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, opposed the petition, relying on Supreme Court decisions in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak, T. Lakshmi Narasimha Chari v. High Court of A.P., Registrar (Administration), High Court of Orissa v. Sisir Kanta Satapathy, and Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra. They argued that the Chief Justice's opinion on sanction against a subordinate judge is binding on the competent authority, that the proposal is placed before the Chief Justice only after due enquiry, and that no reasons are required in the sanction order or the Chief Justice's opinion. The court, after considering the submissions, dismissed the petition, holding that the Chief Justice's opinion is binding and that the grounds raised were without merit. The court noted that the petitioner's grounds were not specifically pleaded in the writ petition and that the established legal position supports the respondents' contentions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sanction to Prosecute - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Competent Authority - The petitioner challenged the refusal to grant sanction to prosecute a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, contending that the Governor was the competent authority and that the Chief Justice's opinion was unreasoned and without enquiry. The court held that the opinion of the Chief Justice on the proposal for grant or non-grant of sanction against a subordinate judge is binding on the competent authority, and no reasons are required to be stated in such opinion. (Paras 1-3) B) Criminal Law - Sanction to Prosecute - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Chief Justice's Opinion - The petitioner argued that the Chief Justice formed the opinion without directing any enquiry. The court rejected this, noting that the proposal is placed before the Chief Justice only after due enquiry as per governing practice. (Para 3) C) Criminal Law - Sanction to Prosecute - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Reasons in Sanction Order - The petitioner contended that the Chief Justice's opinion was bereft of reasons. The court held that no reason is required to be noted in the sanction order passed by the competent authority, and by analogy, no reason is required in the Chief Justice's opinion. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal to grant sanction to prosecute a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court, is valid and whether the Chief Justice's opinion must be reasoned and preceded by an enquiry.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The court held that the opinion of the Chief Justice on the proposal for grant or non-grant of sanction against a subordinate judge is binding on the competent authority, and no reasons are required to be stated in such opinion.
Law Points
- Sanction to prosecute subordinate judge requires Chief Justice's opinion
- which is binding on the competent authority
- No reasons required in Chief Justice's opinion on sanction proposal
- Enquiry precedes submission to Chief Justice
- Governor is not the competent authority for sanction against subordinate judge
