Sanction Required When Acts Are Connected to Official Duties
In G.C. Manjunath v. Seetaram [2025 INSC 439], the Supreme Court held that prior government sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is required before prosecuting a public servant, even when the alleged acts exceed official duties, provided such acts are reasonably connected with the discharge of official functions.
Purpose of Sanction: Prevention of Vexatious Litigation
The requirement of prior sanction serves to protect public servants from frivolous or vexatious prosecution by mandating government approval before instituting criminal proceedings for acts allegedly committed in the discharge of official duties.
Excess Alone Does Not Remove Statutory Protection
Any action undertaken by a public officer, even if exceeding their vested authority or overstepping official duties, remains protected under Section 197 of the CrPC where a reasonable connection exists between the complained act and the officer’s prescribed duties.
Mere excess or overreach in performing official duties does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated under Section 197 of the CrPC.
Supreme Court Precedent
The Court relied upon D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain [(2020) 7 SCC 695], which established that when a police officer exceeds the bounds of official duty during performance of such duties, the protection under Section 197 CrPC continues to apply if a reasonable nexus exists between the impugned act and the discharge of official functions.
Protection Extends to Cases of Reasonable Overreach
The safeguard requiring prior sanction from competent authority under Section 197 of the CrPC cannot be rendered ineffective merely because alleged acts may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty.
References
- C. Manjunath v Seetaram [2025 INSC 439]
- Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain, [(2020) 7 SCC 695]
