Refusal Of Sanction Based Solely On Accused’s Contributions Without Considering Prosecution Material Invalid: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the sanction order, which had declined prosecution, as well as subsequent proceedings flowing from it.

A Single Judge Bench comprising Justice A. Badharudeen observed that while a sanction is intended as a safeguard to public servants against frivolous litigation, it cannot be construed in a pedantic manner. The Bench emphasised: “In Ext. P2, the sanction order, there is no prima facie application of mind, and there is no reference to the prosecution materials. Ext. P2 merely depicts an appraisal of the contributions made by the 8th accused to the University, so that the accused of such a stature could not be prosecuted are the reasons for denying sanction, without adhering to the procedure established by law. In view of the above, Ext. P2 is liable to be set aside”.

Advocate S. Abhilash Vishnu represented the petitioner, while Rajesh A., Special Public Prosecutor, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The petitioner had assailed the order of the University Syndicate refusing sanction to prosecute a senior faculty member. It was contended that the refusal was vitiated by non-application of mind, as the Syndicate had not considered the prosecution records and instead declined sanction solely on account of the accused’s reputation and service.

Court’s Observations

The Kerala High Court reaffirmed that the validity of a sanction order depends on whether the authority has applied its independent mind to the facts and prosecution materials. The Bench observed that the sanctioning authority is expected to independently evaluate the material, unaffected by external pressure or irrelevant considerations.

The Bench relied on Vinod Kumar Garg v. NCT of Delhi, where the Supreme Court had held that “what the law requires is the application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority on the material placed before it to satisfy itself of prima facie case that would constitute the offence”

The Court concluded that a refusal based merely on the stature or achievements of the accused is impermissible, as the decision must rest on consideration of the material placed by the prosecution. The Bench further clarified that sanction orders must at least show that the records were examined. The absence of such reflection renders the order invalid.

Explaining the purpose and scope of sanction orders, observing that while such orders serve as an essential safeguard for public servants they cannot be assessed without considering the material that has been placed on record, the Bench stated that “the order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach to test its validity.”

Conclusion

Allowing the writ petition, the Kerala High Court set aside the sanction order and directed the Syndicate of the University to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law, applying its mind to the prosecution records, within a period of two months.

The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the University within seven days.

Cause Title: Anirudh P vs The State Of Kerala & Ors (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:67092)

Appearances

Petitioner: Advocate S. Abhilash Vishnu

Respondents: Rajesh A., Special Public Prosecutor with Advocates Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, V.M. Krishnakumar, Kavya Srijeeth

Click here to read/download Judgment