Case Title: Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr V. Seema Kapoor
Justices S K Kaul and Hemant Gupta's bench made the statement. The purpose of Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code is to safeguard an officer who is suspected of committing an offence while acting or pretending to act in the performance of his official responsibilities from unwarranted harassment.
The Supreme Court ruled that a previous sanction from a competent authority is required in order to prosecute a government employee for an alleged illegal act. This choice was made in relation to preserving a Rajasthan High Court judgement that had granted protection to a government clerk in a matter involving land.
According to the Supreme Court, Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code forbids the court from taking cognizance of such an offence without the prior approval of the appropriate authorities.
According to section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a government employee must receive prior approval from a competent officer before being prosecuted for an alleged criminal act committed while performing his official duties, and "no court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous approval."
The bench added that at the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be interpreted in a way that advances the cause of honesty, justice, and good governance. Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution.
The Supreme Court stated that the standard to be employed is to determine, at a minimum, whether the accused's alleged act of omission had a reasonable link to the performance of his obligations. The actual question, it was stated, is whether the act was closely related to the official duties. In reference to the case, the Supreme Court stated that the clerk's omission from the FIR was not particularly significant because the claimed participation was only afterwards discovered. The bench stated that his participation in the alleged infraction—conspiring with his superiors—is what is significant, though.
The top court stated that when processing a land sale application, the file was originally sent to the Executive Officer who directed the inspection. The Junior Engineer then carried out the inspection, and it was only after that that the Municipal Commissioner signed the application.
"As a result, even if the accusation is that Respondent No. 2 conspired with his upper officers, the trial court denied him the same protection while the superior officers who dealt with the file received it have been given protection. Neither the State nor the complainant filed an appeal about the protection provided in relation to these two additional officers under Section 197 of the CrPC. Therefore, we are unable to see why Respondent No. 2 should not receive the same protection that was provided to the other two officers by the Trial Court and High Court, respectively,” the bench stated.
The bench stated that no sanction had been acquired in regard to any of the officers and that approval from a competent authority would be necessary to take cognizance. In light of this, the proceedings against the other two officers were invalidated, and the High Court also ordered this in the current instance, it added.