The Punjab and Haryana High Court has declared that courts cannot compel competent authorities to either grant or refuse prosecution sanction against public servants through judicial orders. This ruling reaffirms the boundaries of judicial review and the discretionary powers of authorities in sanctioning prosecutions.
In a notable judgment, the bench, led by Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Anil Kshetarpal, emphasized that the authority’s discretion in these matters should not be undermined. The case arose from a plea by Deepak Sandhu, an Ambala resident, who sought judicial intervention for the prosecution of a former Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Ambala involved in a case alleging offenses under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Sandhu’s initial complaint, which included accusations against the CJM, was dismissed by the CJM himself as “not maintainable.” This decision was later overturned by the sessions court, which reassigned the case to a judicial magistrate. In 2024, the magistrate highlighted the need for sanction before proceeding against the CJM, leading Sandhu to seek the High Court’s direction for such sanction.
The High Court, however, refused to direct the competent authority to grant prosecution sanction, citing the limited scope of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court also referenced a similar Supreme Court case from 1997, which criticized the Gujarat High Court for overstepping its bounds by ordering a secretary-level officer to grant prosecution sanction.
