In a landmark decision, the Kerala High Court has upheld the state government’s refusal to grant prosecution sanction against a police officer implicated in a 2001 case involving alleged custodial death. The Court emphasized that the discretion to permit prosecution of public servants lies solely with the designated sanctioning authority and serves as a safeguard against “frivolous and vexatious” legal actions.
Delivering the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 6502 of 2019, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas ruled that the prosecution sanction requirement is a critical “sacrosanct act” intended to protect public officials from unwarranted litigation over actions performed in their official capacities. He stated:
“The concept of prosecution sanction is not an idle formality or an unnecessary exercise, but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to public servants against frivolous prosecutions.”
Case Background
The case centers on the death of Narayanan Nair, who allegedly died following an altercation with police officers in September 2001. The deceased’s family claimed that Sub Inspector M.J. Sojan, then stationed at Nilambur Police Station, assaulted Nair at a bus stop along with other officers, leading to injuries that allegedly contributed to his death. However, the official post-mortem report attributed Nair’s death to a myocardial infarction, with no substantial trauma recorded.
Over the years, Nair’s family pursued multiple legal avenues, including filing complaints with the Human Rights Commission and initiating criminal proceedings. While an interim compensation was awarded to Nair’s widow by the Commission, attempts to prosecute the officers involved encountered legal hurdles. In 2016, the Kerala High Court quashed a criminal case against the officers, citing the necessity of prosecution sanction given the alleged incident occurred in the discharge of their official duties.
Subsequently, the family petitioned the Kerala government to sanction prosecution, which the government denied in 2018. The current petition before the High Court challenged this refusal.
Legal Issues and Arguments
At the heart of the case was the government’s discretion in granting prosecution sanction against a public servant. Counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Rajit, argued that the sanctioning authority’s refusal was biased and overlooked key evidence. He cited instances of alleged inconsistencies, such as a delayed post-mortem, which he argued were omitted in the sanctioning process. Furthermore, Rajit referenced legal precedents supporting prosecution in cases where public officials are alleged to have exceeded their lawful authority.
Representing Sub Inspector Sojan, Senior Counsel B.G. Harindranath refuted the petitioner’s allegations, emphasizing that the post-mortem report showed no fatal injuries and supported the conclusion of a natural death due to heart failure. Harindranath underscored the legal requirement for prosecution sanction as a necessary protection for officers in the line of duty, particularly when there is insufficient evidence linking them to criminal conduct.
Adv. C.K. Suresh, representing the state as Public Prosecutor, argued that the government acted within its legal remit and discretion, emphasizing that the government’s refusal to grant sanction followed a thorough review of relevant materials, including an investigative report by the Inspector General of Police.
Court’s Decision and Observations
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the petitioner’s challenge, affirming that the authority to grant or refuse sanction “vests absolutely with the sanctioning authority.” He underscored that judicial interference in sanctioning decisions should be limited to the decision-making process itself, rather than revisiting the substance of the decision.
He noted that:
“If the discretion of the sanctioning authority is not affected by any extraneous considerations and the authority has applied its mind independently to arrive at the conclusion, then this Court ought not to interfere with an order granting or refusing sanction.”
Justice Thomas observed that the refusal order, based on an exhaustive review by the Inspector General and other state officials, demonstrated appropriate consideration of the evidence. The Inspector General’s report highlighted the post-mortem findings, which indicated death by myocardial infarction without significant external injuries. Additionally, the court acknowledged a clerical error in the crime number cited in the government’s order as inconsequential, accepting the government’s clarification that it was merely a typographical oversight.
“The purpose of sanction itself being to insulate a public servant from frivolous prosecutions, the said process would become a dead letter if orders of the sanctioning authority are interfered with, without any rhyme or reason.”
