Short answer: Under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a court cannot take cognizance of offences under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 against a public servant without previous sanction of the competent authority. A sanction can be challenged if the wrong authority granted it or there was no application of mind, but defects lead to relief only where they cause a failure of justice.
Who must grant sanction
Section 19(1) names the authority: the Union Government for a person who is employed, or was at the time of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union; the State Government for a State employee on the same basis; and for any other person, the authority competent to remove him from office. Where there is doubt about which authority is competent, Section 19(2) says sanction is given by the authority that could have removed the officer when the offence was allegedly committed.
The Explanation to Section 19 says an “error” includes competency of the authority to grant sanction. A private complainant can seek sanction only after filing a complaint in court that has not been dismissed, and in such cases the public servant must be given an opportunity of being heard before sanction is granted.
Common grounds of challenge
- Sanction granted by an authority that was not competent to remove the officer.
- No independent application of mind, for example where the authority did not have the full investigation material or simply signed a draft. In CBI v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal the Supreme Court required complete and conscious scrutiny of the record by the sanctioning authority.
- Sanction given under compulsion. In Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat (1997) the Supreme Court set aside a sanction granted under a High Court direction.
- Cognizance taken before any sanction existed.
What the courts have held on consequences
In Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka (2015), Justices T.S. Thakur and Amitava Roy held that a trial on an invalid sanction is non est, the question can be raised at any stage, and a fresh trial is possible with a valid sanction.
In Shivendra Nath Verma v. Union of India (July 2024), the Supreme Court held that a sanction granted after the court had taken cognizance is not void for that reason alone; the CBI could file the sanction and the court could then take cognizance afresh.
Section 19(3) and (4) limit relief: an appellate court will not reverse a finding, and no court will stay proceedings, for an error in sanction unless it caused a failure of justice, and the court considers whether the objection could and should have been raised earlier.
Section 218 BNSS is a separate requirement
Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 197 CrPC) requires government sanction for offences alleged to have been committed while acting or purporting to act in official duty. It adds a second proviso: if the government does not decide within 120 days, sanction is deemed accorded. That deemed-sanction rule is in the BNSS, not in Section 19 of the PC Act.
Related questions
Can sanction validity be challenged before trial?
It can be raised early, and Section 19(4) expects objections to be raised at the earliest stage. Courts often leave disputed factual questions about application of mind to the trial, where the sanctioning authority can be examined as a witness.
Is sanction needed for every PC Act offence?
Section 19 covers offences under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 by public servants. It does not apply to a private person charged as a bribe-giver under Section 8.
Is the accused entitled to a hearing before sanction?
Section 19 gives a hearing only where the request for sanction comes from a person other than a police officer or investigating agency. In police or CBI cases the statute does not give that hearing.
Does a defective sanction mean acquittal?
Not automatically. Under Nanjappa (2015) a trial without valid sanction is void, but the prosecution may try again with a valid sanction; under Section 19(3) relief also depends on failure of justice.
Practical points
- Obtain a copy of the sanction order and the list of documents placed before the authority.
- Verify who could remove the officer on the date of the alleged offence.
- Raise any sanction objection at the earliest stage to avoid the Section 19(4) bar.
- Check separately whether Section 218 BNSS sanction was also needed for any non-PC Act charge.
Sources: India Code, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; LiveLaw, Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka, 2015; LiveLaw, Shivendra Nath Verma, July 2024; LiveLaw, Section 197 CrPC vs Section 218 BNSS.
For a confidential discussion on prosecution sanction in corruption cases, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
