Vijay Rajmohan vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Chennai
Background
The appellant, a Central Secretariat Service officer, was accused by the CBI of amassing assets disproportionate to his known income while posted in Delhi and Bangalore. The CBI sought sanction to prosecute him from the Department of Personnel and Training in September 2015, but sanction was only granted in July 2017, about one year and ten months later, after the sanctioning authority consulted the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC). The trial court discharged the appellant, holding the sanction order was vitiated because the sanctioning authority had mechanically followed the CVC's view instead of applying its own mind. The Madras High Court reversed this and restored the prosecution, and the officer appealed to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court decided two legal questions. First, it held that a sanctioning authority consulting the CVC before deciding on sanction is not, by itself, unlawful "acting under dictation": the CVC's role under the CVC Act is advisory, and taking that advice into account does not vitiate the authority's own independent decision. Second, it held that the statutory timeline for deciding a sanction request (three months, extendable by one more month for legal consultation) is mandatory, but breaching it does not automatically result in quashing the criminal case, instead, an aggrieved party can approach the writ court for directions, and the CVC can hold the delaying authority accountable and take corrective/administrative action. Applying this to the facts, since the appellant had never challenged the 22-month delay in the courts below, the Court left him free to pursue appropriate remedies for the delay separately, and dismissed his appeal against the reinstated prosecution.
Lesson Learnt
Delay by a government authority in deciding whether to sanction prosecution of a public servant is treated seriously and is legally "mandatory" to avoid, but the accused's remedy for such delay is to seek accountability and directions from a writ court (and via CVC oversight), not automatic dismissal of the criminal case itself.