Refusal To Sanction Prosecution Of Public Servant Is An Administrative Order; Mere Brevity Of Reasons In Such Order Cannot Be A Ground To Invoke Writ Jurisdiction: Delhi High Court

It was held that its mere brevity cannot be a ground to invoke writ jurisdiction when it ex facie indicates that the competent authority examined the material and found no justification to accord sanction.

​The Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “From the above discussion, it emerges that not only the competent authority has duly considered the case of the Petitioner but has also applied its mind to the material placed before it to arrive at a reasoned satisfaction, which is evident from the order itself as well as the comments and opinions on record. An order declining sanction for prosecution is an administrative order and is not required to contain elaborate reasons akin to a judicial or quasi-judicial order…Mere brevity of reasons in the impugned order, by itself, cannot be a ground to invoke writ jurisdiction, particularly when the order ex facie indicates that the competent authority has examined the material and found no justification to accord sanction.”

Advocates Shivam and Salman Naushad appeared on behalf of the Petitioner, whereas ASC Sanjeev Bhandari appeared for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The present writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023, challenged an order which rejected the Petitioner’s application for prosecution sanction under Section 197 CrPC against three police officials, alleging misuse of official position and harassment. The Petitioner’s grievances stem from a long-standing property dispute with an occupant. She alleged that despite numerous complaints regarding Shakib’s illegal activities and attempts to outrage her modesty, the police remained inactive. It was only after she approached the Public Grievances Cell that an FIR was finally registered against Shakib. However, she claims the police subsequently retaliated by colluding with Shakib to register a false case against her husband, which ultimately resulted in his acquittal.

Following her husband's acquittal, the Petitioner sought legal remedy as permitted by the Special Judge. After a previous High Court intervention directed the authorities to act, the Respondent issued the impugned order. The authority declined the request for sanction, stating that after reviewing the material, there was no cogent evidence to justify the prosecution of the public servants. The Petitioner now seeks to set aside this rejection.

Contention of the Parties

It was submitted by the Petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be interfered with as the same was passed without assigning any reasons. It was prayed that the Respondent be directed to consider the Petitioner’s application afresh and pass a speaking and a reasoned order.

Per contra, the State submitted that the Petitioner’s application was duly examined by the competent authority and that the departmental record, including the relevant file notings and the comments furnished, clearly reflects due application of mind. It was contended that the impugned order has been passed after considering the material placed on record and, therefore, the present writ petition is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.

Observations of the Court

The Court said that the object of Section 197 of the CrPC is to afford reasonable protection to public servants against frivolous, vexatious, or ill-motivated prosecutions for acts done in the course of official functions, thereby enabling them to discharge their duties independently, fearlessly, and efficiently, without undermining accountability in genuine cases.

“Hence, it is no more res-intgra that sanction under Section 197 CrPC is not an empty formality, but a statutory protection afforded to public servants to enable them to discharge their official functions without fear of vexatious or frivolous prosecution.”, it was noted.

The Court observed, “Thus, from the above it becomes well-settled that scope of judicial review in matters relating to grant or refusal of prosecution sanction is extremely limited. This Court cannot not take a hypertechnical approach or sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the sanctioning authority and cannot re-appreciate the material or substitute its own opinion for that of the competent authority…Thus, the limited aspect for consideration is whether the relevant material was placed before the competent authority and whether the said authority duly considered the same, reflecting due application of mind…It emerges that the sanction to prosecute is sought on the ground that after the acquittal of the Petitioner’s husband in FIR No. 678/2014 his false implication became apparent, leading the petitioner to seek sanction under Section 197 CrPC against the concerned police officials for misuse of official position.”

Conclusion

The Court concluded, “This Court is also conscious of the fact that the allegations raised by the Petitioner pertain to events dating back more than a decade and have already been subject matter of criminal proceedings, which culminated in acquittal. In absence of any material to demonstrate that the impugned order suffers from arbitrariness, mala fides, or total non-application of mind, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the decision of the competent authority in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Cause Title: Triveni v. Home Department Govt. of NCT Of Delhi [Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:11902]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocates Shivam and Salman Naushad

Respondent: Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC

Click here to read/download the Judgment