The Supreme Court ruled that prior government approval is a must before prosecuting public servants if their actions are tied to official duties. This protects officers from false or unnecessary criminal cases.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India said that if a government officer is doing something related to his official work, then before starting any criminal case against him, the government must first give permission.
This rule applies even if the officer did something wrong or crossed his limits while doing his job. This was said in the case of GC Manjunath v. Seetaram, where the court made it clear that permission from the government is compulsory if the act is reasonably connected to official duty.
The decision was made by a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma. They also said that if the act done by the public servant has nothing to do with his official duty, then there is no need to take permission from the government.
The Court clearly said:
“If there exists a reasonable link between the act complained of and the official duties of the public servant, the protective umbrella of Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act is attracted. In such cases, prior sanction assumes the character of a sine qua non, regardless of whether the public servant exceeded the scope of authority or acted improperly while discharging his duty.”
This means that if there is some connection between the act and the officer’s job, then protection under law must be given, and permission from the government is a must before starting any criminal case.
Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) says that no public servant can be taken to court for a criminal offence if the act was done while doing his duty, unless the government allows it. This law is meant to protect government officials from fake or unnecessary criminal cases.
In July 2024, CrPC was replaced by the new law called Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). In this new law also, there is a similar rule under Section 218.
The Supreme Court looked at this law while hearing the case of two Karnataka police officers. These officers were being prosecuted for allegedly filing false cases against a man who had earlier complained about some illegal work being done by the police. The man also said that the police officers took revenge by torturing him in police custody. He claimed that photos of him in the lock-up were sent to a magazine to damage his image.
Five police officers were blamed in this case. A lower court (trial court) accepted the complaint and started legal action. Later, the police officers went to the Karnataka High Court and asked to cancel the case. They said that no government permission (sanction) was taken before starting the case against them, so the case should not go on.
But the High Court said that what the officers did had nothing to do with their duty, so no permission was needed. The Court also said that the person who filed the complaint tried hard to get the government’s permission. In the end, the High Court said that the police officers should go through the trial.
After this, the police officers went to the Supreme Court for help. While the case was going on, three of the five accused police officers passed away. The other two officers had already retired.
Finally, the Supreme Court gave relief to the two retired officers. The Court said that even if the officer does more than what is allowed in his job or misuses his power, that alone is not enough to take away his legal protection under the law. Government permission is still necessary.
The Court clearly said that without this permission, the whole criminal case becomes invalid. In short, no case should have been started against them without the required approval.
ALSO READ: Waqf (Amendment) Act 2025 Enacted | The President of India Gives Assent on April 5
The Court explained why this legal protection is important. It said that this rule is made to save honest public servants from false and troubling cases. It helps ensure that good officers don’t get scared of doing their work properly.
The Court stated:
“frivolous or vexatious prosecution for actions undertaken in good faith in the discharge of, or purported discharge of, their official duties, thereby ensuring that the fear of litigation does not impede the efficient functioning of public administration.”
So, the Supreme Court has made it clear that if there is a link between an officer’s action and his duty, then no criminal case can be started without government approval — even if the officer did something wrong while doing his duty.
This decision protects honest officers from unnecessary harassment and helps maintain smooth public service.
CASE TITLE:
GC Manjunath v. Seetaram
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Justice Yashwant Varma
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
