Sanction: A Procedural Safeguard
In the Indian criminal justice system, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) serves as a critical procedural safeguard. It is designed to protect public servants from frivolous, vexatious, or malicious criminal proceedings, thereby enabling them to perform their official duties without fear or undue harassment.
The provision mandates that a court cannot take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a public servant “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” without receiving prior sanction from the competent government authority. This ensures that the machinery of criminal law is not misused to intimidate officials.
Who Qualifies as a “Public Servant”?
For the purposes of Section 197 CrPC, the term “public servant” primarily includes any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate, or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government. The definition also draws from Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), encompassing individuals employed in connection with the affairs of the Union or a State.
The key determinant is whether the appointing and removing authority is the Central or State Government. This protection, therefore, extends to a wide range of officials, including civil servants, police officers, and military personnel, for acts performed in the course of their official functions.
The Core Principle: The “Nexus” Test
The protection afforded by Section 197 is not a blanket immunity covering all acts of a public servant. The judiciary, through numerous landmark judgments, has clarified its scope. The central principle for invoking Section 197 is the “nexus test”, which examines whether there is a reasonable connection or an intrinsic link between the alleged criminal act and the official duties of the public servant.
The test does not require the act to be a necessary part of the duty, but rather that it was committed “under the colour of office.” If the act is so intertwined with the official’s duties that they cannot be separated, sanction is mandatory. Conversely, if the act is entirely extraneous to their official responsibilities—a purely personal act—no such sanction is required.
Judicial Interpretations on the Scope of Protection
In the seminal case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari [1956 AIR 44], the Supreme Court established the nexus test, holding that there must be a “reasonable connection” between the act and the discharge of official duty. The act must be such that the public servant could reasonably claim it was done in the course of their duty.
Protection is not automatically forfeited if a public servant acts in excess of their duty. In D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain [AIR 2020 SC 3292], the Supreme Court reiterated that even if an official’s act exceeds their authority, sanction is necessary as long as a reasonable connection exists between the act and the performance of that duty.
An omission or failure to perform a duty can also fall within the ambit of an official act. In Amal Kumar Jha vs. State of Chhattisgarh [AIR 2016 SC 2082] the Court held that a government doctor’s alleged failure to provide a vehicle for a patient was an omission connected to his official duty, thus necessitating sanction for prosecution.
Clarifying the limits of this protection, the Supreme Court in Punjab State Warehousing Corp vs Bhushan Chander & Anr [AIR 2016 SC 3014], held that if the “acts, omission or commission is totally alien to the discharge of the official duty,” the question of invoking Section 197 CrPC does not arise.
When Sanction Is Not Required
Based on judicial precedent, prior sanction under Section 197 is generally not required in the following circumstances:
If the alleged offence has no connection to the public servant’s official role (e.g., a personal dispute leading to an assault).
Offences such as accepting a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, are typically not considered acts performed in the discharge of official duty. However, the PC Act itself has separate provisions for sanction (Section 19).
The necessity of sanction is determined based on the status of the public servant at the time the court takes cognizance of the offence. If the individual has already retired, sanction may not be required under Section 197 CrPC, though other legal provisions might apply.
Exclusion of Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) Officials
A significant clarification in the case of Mohd. Hadi Raja v. State of Bihar [AIR 1998 SC 1945], the Supreme Court addressed whether officials of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) or government companies are entitled to protection under Section 197. The Court definitively held that such protection is not applicable to them.
Even if a PSU qualifies as a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution due to deep and pervasive government control, its employees are not directly employed by the government nor are they removable by its sanction. Therefore, they fall outside the specific scope of Section 197 CrPC.
Post Views: 19