Sanction for Prosecution Not Invalid Merely Due to Subsequent Allegations Against Sanctioning Authority: Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Name: Shilpy Pattar Dutt v. State of Haryana and Others
Date of Judgment: April 22, 2026
Citation: CWP-7649-2018
Bench: Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The High Court held that sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be invalidated merely because the sanctioning authority was later implicated in separate allegations. Validity of sanction must be tested on its own merits, and not on subsequent events unrelated to the decision-making process.
Summary: The petitioner, a Haryana Civil Servant, challenged the order dated 11.10.2017 granting sanction for her prosecution in a CBI case under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The sanction had been accorded by the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, pursuant to a CBI investigation arising from FIR No. 08 dated 05.08.2017.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the sanction was granted mechanically and that the sanctioning authority himself was later involved in a large embezzlement case. The petitioner also contended that no recovery was made from her and that the prosecution would irreparably damage her career prospects.
The respondents opposed the plea, submitting that the petitioner had been caught in a trap case and that the validity of sanction could be examined during trial. It was further argued that there was no jurisdictional error in granting sanction.
The Court noted that the petitioner did not dispute the competence of the Chief Secretary to grant sanction. The primary challenge was based on subsequent allegations against the sanctioning authority and the alleged haste in granting approval.
Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that subsequent allegations against the sanctioning authority do not render prior decisions invalid unless the order itself is shown to be legally flawed. The Court emphasized that accepting such an argument would lead to untenable consequences, potentially invalidating numerous administrative decisions.
It further held that the plea of hurried sanction is not a valid ground for judicial interference. The petitioner retains the right to challenge the validity of sanction during trial, including cross-examination of the sanctioning authority. Finding no illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order, the Court declined to exercise its writ jurisdiction and dismissed the petition.