Short answer: The authority must decide a sanction request under Section 19 of the PC Act within three months, extendable by one month. The Supreme Court has held this four-month limit mandatory, but delay alone does not quash the case or create deemed sanction under the PC Act. Where the CVC has advised sanction, a refusal must go through the DoPT, and courts cannot direct an authority to grant sanction.
The time limit
The 2018 amendment added a proviso to Section 19(1): the authority shall endeavour to decide within three months of receiving the proposal, extendable by one month where legal consultation is needed, with reasons recorded in writing.
In Vijay Rajmohan v. State (CBI) decided on 11 October 2022, Justices B.R. Gavai and P.S. Narasimha held that the four-month period is mandatory. But the consequence of non-compliance is not quashing of the criminal proceeding; the authority is accountable for the delay and subject to judicial review and administrative action by the CVC.
No deemed sanction under the PC Act
Section 19 contains no deemed-sanction clause. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 introduced a 120-day deemed-sanction proviso in Section 218 (formerly Section 197 CrPC), which applies to the BNSS sanction for acts in official duty. Earlier, in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. (2025), the Supreme Court said Section 197 CrPC did not provide for deemed sanction.
Refusal against CVC advice
In Jay Pratap Singh Chauhan v. CBI (reported 12 October 2026), Justice Subhash Vidyarthi of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) explained the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 1 March 2019: where the CBI seeks sanction and the CVC recommends it, an authority that proposes refusal must refer the disagreement to the DoPT. Internal file notings are not orders refusing sanction until approved by the final decision-maker and communicated.
Courts cannot compel sanction
In Pawan Kumar v. CBI (27 July 2026), Justice Raj Beer Singh of the Allahabad High Court held that a trial court cannot direct the CBI to secure sanction, because that would effectively direct the authority to grant it. As the court put it, “neither the Court nor any other authority can direct the sanctioning authority to grant or not to grant sanction.” This follows Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan (1997).
Related questions
Is an internal file noting a refusal of sanction?
No. In Jay Pratap Singh Chauhan (2026) the Allahabad High Court held that internal notings take effect only when approved by the final decision-maker and communicated to the person concerned.
Can the complainant challenge delay in sanction?
Yes. Vijay Rajmohan (2022) says that after four months the aggrieved party, including the complainant, can approach the writ court for directions to act on the request.
Does delay in sanction help the accused?
Delay alone does not quash the case. It may, however, be relevant to other arguments, such as whether the authority applied its mind to the full record.
Is CVC advice binding on the sanctioning authority?
No. CVC advice is advisory, but in CBI cases a proposal to refuse sanction contrary to CVC advice must follow the DoPT referral procedure.
Practical points
- Keep a dated record of when the sanction proposal was received by the authority.
- Ask whether the CVC was consulted and what it advised.
- Do not treat silence under Section 19 as deemed sanction or deemed refusal.
- Check whether a BNSS Section 218 sanction is also involved, since its 120-day rule differs.
Sources: Supreme Court, Vijay Rajmohan v. State, 11 October 2022; Verdictum, Jay Pratap Singh Chauhan v. CBI, October 2026; LiveLaw, Pawan Kumar v. CBI, July 2026; LiveLaw, Section 197 CrPC vs Section 218 BNSS.
For a confidential discussion on sanction delay and refusal, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
