Supreme Court slaps ₹1 lakh costs on Rajasthan for politically influenced prosecution of doctor

The Supreme Court recently pulled up the Rajasthan government for its decision to prosecute a government doctor in a corruption case after it had earlier refused sanction to prosecute him [State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dev Kant Meena].

A Bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandra observed that the reversal was prompted by political interference despite there being no fresh material to justify reconsidering its earlier refusal to grant sanction for prosecution.

Using the literary reference to Shakespeare's Hamlet, the Court said authorities deciding whether to allow the prosecution of a public servant cannot keep wavering between opposing decisions.

"The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in ‘Hamlet’s Soliloquy’: ‘to be or not to be’, though expressed in a different context. If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed," observed the Court in the July 23 order.

The case arose from allegations that the government doctor in Rajasthan had demanded a bribe of ₹5,000-₹6,000 from the relative of a patient for a knee surgery in 2017. According to the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), several payments were allegedly made over a period few days. Additionally, ₹2,000 was recovered during a trap laid on March 29, 2017.

When the Rajasthan government first considered whether to allow the doctor's prosecution, senior officials concluded that the evidence did not clearly show that doctor had demanded or accepted a bribe.

They said the recorded phone calls appeared to be about the cost of steel implants needed for the surgery rather than a demand for a bribe. They also found no proof of the earlier alleged cash payments and questioned the recovery of ₹2,000 from a locked drawer that had to be broken open during the trap. Based on these findings, the government initially refused permission to prosecute the doctor.

The matter was later sent back for reconsideration by the joint secretary in the Chief Minister's Office despite there being no fresh evidence.

Although the Department of Personnel again recommended that sanction should not be granted, sanction for prosecution was ultimately granted after reassessing the case,

Aggrieved, the doctor challenged the sanction before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court quashed it holding that the State had reviewed its earlier decision on the same material without any fresh evidence.

The State then approached the Supreme Court challenging the High Court's decision to quash the sanction for prosecution.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision. It held that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act protects public servants from false or frivolous prosecutions. It said a decision refusing sanction cannot ordinarily be reviewed merely because another authority takes a different view on the same material.

The Court noted that the State's own officials had repeatedly raised doubts about the case. These included whether there was any clear demand for a bribe, how the trap was conducted and the recovery of the money.

"We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and we deprecate such instances bringing out interference leading to unnecessary harassment of public officers discharging public duties; which is sought to be avoided by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act," said the Court.

Referring to earlier decisions, the Court reiterated that while a refusal to grant sanction may be reconsidered if fresh material emerges during investigation, a mere change of opinion on the same evidence is impermissible.

It also criticised the State for pursuing the appeal despite the High Court having set aside what it described as an illegal sanction order.

"We cannot but observe that the petitioner has been dragged unnecessarily to the High Court by the review, prompted by the office of the CM. The State at least should have rested content, when the highest Constitutional Court within its boundaries, interfered with a patently illegal and blatantly tainted order of sanction," observed the Court.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the State's petition and directed it to pay costs of ₹50,000 each before the High Court and the Supreme Court within two months.

[Read Order]