Bench
A 5-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court:
- N. Santosh Hegde, J.
- S.N. Variava, J.
- B.P. Singh, J.
- H.K. Sema, J.
- S.B. Sinha, J.
Facts
- The case involved two former ministers of Madhya Pradesh, Rajendra Kumar Singh and Bisahu Ram Yadav.
- A complaint was filed with the Lokayukta alleging that the two ministers illegally released 7.5 acres of land back to its previous owners, despite the land being acquired by the Indore Development Authority.
- After an investigation, the Lokayukta submitted a report, stating that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the two ministers under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and for criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC.
- By the time the Lokayukta submitted its report, both ministers had already resigned.
- The Council of Ministers refused to grant sanction for prosecution, stating that there was no prima facie case against them.
- The Governor of Madhya Pradesh, after reviewing the evidence, disagreed with the Council of Ministers and granted sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The ministers challenged the Governor’s decision in the High Court, which ruled that the Governor could not grant sanction without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers.
Issues
- Can the Governor grant sanction for the prosecution of ministers under the Prevention of Corruption Act without the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers?
- Is the Governor bound to follow the Council of Ministers’ decision on granting sanction for prosecution?
- Does the doctrine of necessity allow the Governor to act independently when the Council of Ministers is biased?
Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle)
- Governor’s Discretion in Granting Sanction: The Supreme Court held that although the Governor generally acts on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, there are exceptions where the Governor can act independently.
- Doctrine of Bias and Necessity: If the Council of Ministers is biased (i.e., if the accused ministers are part of the government), the Governor can act independently to ensure fair decision-making.
- Rule of Law and Accountability: The Court emphasized that if ministers could avoid prosecution by refusing to grant sanction, it would lead to a breakdown of the rule of law and democracy.
Observations
- The Governor, as a constitutional head, usually acts on the advice of the Council of Ministers.
- However, when the entire Council of Ministers is biased, such as in cases involving corruption charges against sitting or former ministers, the Governor can act independently.
- The High Court wrongly held that the Governor had no discretionary power; the Supreme Court overruled this and upheld the Governor’s power to grant sanction for prosecution in such cases.
Decision
- The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that the Governor was justified in granting sanction for prosecution.
- The decision of the High Court was set aside, and the prosecution of the ministers was allowed to proceed.
- The Court directed that the case be expedited, given its long-standing nature.
Important Terms
1. Article 163 (Governor’s Discretionary Power)
- This article states that the Governor must act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in cases where discretion is explicitly provided by the Constitution.
- The Court ruled that in cases of bias, the Governor can act independently under the doctrine of necessity.
2. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) deal with criminal misconduct by public servants, such as abuse of power for personal gain.
- The Lokayukta found that the ministers had misused their position to return acquired land, which constituted an act of corruption.
3. Section 197 of CrPC (Sanction for Prosecution of Public Servants)
- This section requires prior approval from the competent authority (Governor in the case of ministers) before prosecuting a public servant.
- The Supreme Court ruled that the Governor could grant sanction independently when the Council of Ministers was biased.
4. Doctrine of Necessity
- This legal principle states that when the usual decision-making authority is unable to act fairly due to bias or conflict of interest, an alternative authority must take over.
- The Court applied this doctrine to justify the Governor’s independent decision to grant sanction.
5. Lokayukta
- The Lokayukta is an anti-corruption ombudsman who investigates corruption complaints against public officials.
- In this case, the Lokayukta’s report provided sufficient evidence to prosecute the ministers, but the Council of Ministers refused to grant sanction, leading to the Governor’s intervention.
