| Citation | (2004) 8 SCC 788 |
| Date of Judgement | 5th November 2004 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Civil Appeal – No. 7256-57 of 2004 |
| Appellant | Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment |
| Respondent | State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. |
| Bench | N.Santosh Hegde & S.N.Variava & Bisheshwar P.Singh & Hotoi Khetoho Sema & S.B.Sinha |
| Referred | 197 of Crpc, 120B of IPC, 163,226, 227 of COI, 13(1)(d),13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act |
FACTS OF THE CASE
The M.P. Special Police Establishment has filed two Letters Patent Appeals challenging the Single Bench’s decision to invalidate the Governor’s authorization for the two Ministers’ prosecution under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code for the offense punishable under Section 120B of the IPC.
Two ministers in the Madhya Pradesh government were accused of a complaint for giving 7.5 acres of land that had been illegally obtained back to its original owners. According to the Special Police Establishment’s (SPE) investigation, there exists sufficient evidence to prosecute the two Ministers under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as well as for the criminal conspiracy offense covered by section 120B of the IPC, for which they asked for sanction. The two Ministers had left their positions by this point and had resigned.
The Council of Ministers refused the aforementioned censure on the grounds that there was neither a prima facie case against either Minister nor even the slightest amount of evidence against them. Considering the Cabinet’s decision, the Governor stated his belief that there is enough evidence to prosecute the former ministers of the Government of Madhya Pradesh for violating Section 120B of the IPC. As a result, he imposed the sanction under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The two Ministers challenged the Governor’s order in two separate writ petitions filed in accordance with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Following consideration of the expert attorneys who represented both parties, the Single Bench concluded that the duty of sanctioning the Ministers’ prosecution is not one which the Governor “in his discretion” could use it in accordance with the terms in Article 163 of the Constitution, hence he was unable to grant the sanction and thereafter go against the Ministerial Council’s decision. It has been noted that in order for the Governor to exercise his discretion in this subject, neither the doctrine of necessity nor the principle of bias may be used against the entire Council of Ministers.
ISSUE
Whether a Governor can make a decision at his or her own discretion, against the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, to authorize the prosecution of Ministers for violations of the Prevention of Corruption Act and/or the Indian penal code
ARGUMENTS
According to the petitioner’s attorney, Mr. Sorabjee, even though the Governor typically acts with the assistance and counsel of the Council of Ministers, there may be circumstances in which the Governor is required by or required by the Constitution to exercise his function or any of them in his discretion, in accordance with section 163 of the Constitution. Instances/cases where the Governor is to use his or her discretion are clearly provided for in the Indian Constitution. Among the provisions are Articles 239(2), 371A(1)(b), 371A(2)(b), and 371A(2)(f), as well as Sixth Schedule Paragraphs 9(2) and 18(3).
The petitioners argued that there was a good basis to suspect that the Council of Ministers’ judgment was biased because it did not consider relevant information and supporting evidence. They maintained that the report of the Lokayukta, which backed the requirement for prosecution, ought to have been taken into consideration. The petitioners also argued that the Council of Ministers’ refusal to sanction was unreasonable and unsupported by the facts. They asserted that the Governor had the power to act when it appeared that the Council’s decision was made without considering the relevant information.
The Learned Counsel of the Former Ministers, Mr. Tankha, stated that the Council of Ministers had already given the matter careful thought and evaluated all pertinent information. They argued that any challenge to the Council of Ministers’ decision should be brought before a court of law and that the Governor could not participate in an appeal over the Council’s decision. The responses refuted claims that the Council of Ministers’ judgment was biased. They claimed that there was no plausible chance of prejudice, hence the doctrine of bias should not be applied in their situation.
The former Ministers referred to the doctrine of necessity, arguing that the Council of Ministers should make the choice in situations involving ministers and that the Governor’s authority should be restricted. They argued that this doctrine applied to their circumstance.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court of India considered the reasons put forth by both parties when it issued its decision. It placed emphasis on the significance of fairness, prudence, and adherence to constitutional norms in administrative decisions, particularly when high-functioning officials are the subject of criminal prosecution.
The court upheld the appellant’s claim that Article 163 of the Indian Constitution outlines the role of the Council of Ministers in supporting and advising the Governor as he performs his duties, with the exception of situations where the Governor is required to perform those duties at his or her discretion. In this instance, the governor’s discretion and the idea of prejudice were discussed. It was stated that the Governor could need to act independently if there is a good basis to suspect that there is a risk of perceived prejudice. The court emphasized the need for caution when using the doctrine of bias.
The court ruled that the Governor did have the authority to make decisions without consulting the Council of Ministers when the situation called for it.
An authoritative authority known as the Lokayukta had carried out a thorough investigation and published a report. The Council of Ministers’ judgment appeared to be unreasonable when the court took this report into consideration because it neglected to evaluate pertinent factors. The court emphasized that the Governor could exercise his discretion when it appeared that the Council’s decision was made without considering pertinent information.
The appellant also raised the doctrine of necessity, stating that the Council of Ministers must make the judgment in some circumstances, particularly those involving top functionaries. The Governor had the authority to act when the situation called for it, so the court determined that the doctrine of necessity did not apply in this instance.
In the end, the court upheld the appeals, overturned the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench, and ordered that the Governor’s order authorizing prosecution be carried out. The court encouraged a prompt resolution of the matter as well.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by G Parinitha of St. Joseph’s College of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhya.
