Prior sanction a must to prosecute public servant even if act exceeds authority: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that prior government sanction for prosecuting a public servant in a criminal case is mandatory if there is a reasonable connection between the act and the officer’s official duties, even if the officer acted improperly or exceeded his authority [GC Manjunath v. Seetaram]..However, the Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma also clarified that if the act by the public servant is wholly unconnected to the official functions of the public servant, the requirement of sanction to prosecute is obviated."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," reads the judgment..Notably, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) lays down that no public servant can be prosecuted for a criminal offence in connection with an act done in the discharge of their official duties unless prior sanction is obtained from the government under whose employ the public servant is.This provision is intended to protect public servants from frivolous prosecution.A similar provision is found in Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the CrPC in July 2024. .The Court examined the scope of this provision while dealing with a plea by two Karnataka police officers who challenged their prosecution in a case involving allegations that they lodged false cases against a man who had complained of certain illegal activities by the police. The complainant further alleged that the police officers, as revenge, tortured him in custody and that photographs of him in lock up were circulated to a magazine to tarnish his reputation. Five police officers were accused of carrying out these acts. A trial court took cognisance of the crime. The police officers eventually approached the Karnataka High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against them. They contended that no government sanction was taken before initiating criminal proceedings against themHowever, the High Court observed that the acts of the accused police officers fell beyond the scope of their official duties and that no sanction was needed. It also noted that the complainant had made sufficient efforts to try and get sanction for the prosecution. The High Court concluded that the police officers should face trial. This led the accused police officers to approach the Supreme Court for relief. While this appeal was pending, three of the accused police officers passed away, and the remaining two before the Court had retired from service. .The top court eventually granted the two remaining police officers relief. It held that a mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law. The absence of the necessary sanction, in this case, vitiated the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused cops, the Court concluded..The Court has noted that the underlying rationale of statutory provisions requiring such sanction is to safeguard public functionaries from "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.".[Read Judgment]