Sanction for Prosecution Cannot Be Reversed on Political Dictate Without Fresh Material; Review of Refusal to Grant Sanction on Same Material Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Deprecates CM Office Interference
Case Name: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dev Kant Meena
Date of Judgment: 23 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 752
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
Held: The Supreme Court held that once the competent authority has refused sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act after considering the material on record, the decision cannot ordinarily be reviewed merely on a change of opinion or on the same material. Reconsideration may be permissible where fresh material subsequently emerges and is independently considered, but sanction obtained through external or political pressure is vitiated. The sanctioning authority must independently assess whether the material reasonably indicates the possibility of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; it need not itself find conclusive proof, which remains the function of the trial court. The Court emphasised that sanction is intended to protect honest public servants against frivolous and vexatious prosecutions and cannot be reduced to an exercise dictated by extraneous considerations.
Summary: The case arose from allegations that the respondent, a doctor, demanded and accepted bribe amounts in connection with a patient’s knee surgery. After examining the material, including telephone transcripts, circumstances of recovery and the trap proceedings, officers in the Rajasthan Department of Personnel found significant doubts regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. The Principal Secretary approved the recommendation and the Chief Secretary initially declined sanction for prosecution.
The matter was thereafter sent back for reconsideration by the Joint Secretary to the Chief Minister on 24 May 2018, despite no fresh material having emerged. On reconsideration, the Department of Personnel again found no clear demand and expressed suspicion regarding the alleged recovery. The Supreme Court observed that the subsequent shift towards granting sanction resulted from pressure and amounted to an impermissible reconsideration of an earlier decision on substantially the same material.
Relying on Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar and State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti, the Court reiterated that sanction must follow proper and independent application of mind. A mere change of opinion on identical material cannot sustain review of an earlier refusal, though genuinely fresh material may justify reconsideration. The Court described the impugned sanction as affected by external interference and deprecated the resulting harassment of a public officer.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the State of Rajasthan’s Special Leave Petition and declined to interfere with the High Court’s order setting aside the prosecution sanction. It strongly deprecated the reconsideration prompted by the Chief Minister’s office and observed that the respondent had been unnecessarily dragged into further litigation. The State was directed to pay costs quantified at ₹50,000 each before the High Court and the Supreme Court within two months, failing which the respondent was given liberty to approach the Supreme Court through a miscellaneous application.