The Delhi High Court recently clarified that sanction must be obtained from the appropriate authority before a court can take cognisance of charges against public servants. Justice Neena Krishna Bansal made this ruling while hearing a case involving a delayed sanction for the prosecution of a Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) school principal and a junior engineer. Both were implicated in a negligence case that led to the death of a four-year-old child who drowned in a school’s septic tank in 2016.
The principal, represented by advocate Dhruv Gupta, was discharged from the case as the High Court found that the initial cognisance taken by the trial court was invalid due to the absence of prior sanction. The court emphasized that subsequent sanctions, obtained after the fact, do not rectify the legal flaws in the original cognisance.
“The requirement for prior sanction is a fundamental aspect of the legal process when it involves public servants. The subsequent sanction would not cure the initial defect in cognisance,” Justice Bansal stated in her ruling on January 17.
The incident, which resulted in the tragic death of the child due to alleged negligence, led to an FIR being registered under various sections of the IPC, including Section 304 A for causing death by negligence. The chargesheet was filed without the necessary sanctions, leading to legal challenges from the defense.
The prosecution acknowledged the lapse in obtaining timely sanction and suggested that the police could re-submit the chargesheet against the principal, provided they also applied for condonation of the delay. However, the court dismissed this approach, ruling in favor of the accused and allowing for the possibility of condoning delay only if appropriately applied for and justified in future proceedings.
