Supreme Court Divided on Need for Prior Sanction in Prosecuting Government Officials
The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a nuanced verdict on whether prior government sanction is mandatory before prosecuting public officials under certain laws. The judgment arose from a petition filed by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, challenging Section 17A, which deals with sanction requirements for initiating criminal proceedings against government officers.
While a bench considered the necessity of safeguarding officers from frivolous prosecution, opinions differed on whether prior sanction should be an absolute requirement in all cases. Some judges emphasised that mandatory sanction could delay justice, particularly in corruption or abuse-of-power cases, while others stressed that it protects officials from harassment during the discharge of official duties.
The court directed that a careful balance must be maintained between accountability and administrative protection. Legal experts said the verdict would influence how government officials are prosecuted and could shape reforms regarding transparency, integrity, and the rule of law in public administration.
