The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a public servant cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if their actions exceeded legal authority, as long as there is a reasonable link between the act and their official duties.
Section 197 CrPC acts as a safeguard to protect public servants from frivolous or vengeful litigation for actions taken during their official roles. The Court clarified that this protection is not lost just because the officer may have gone beyond their duty, provided there is a reasonable connection to the role they were performing.
“Any action undertaken by a public officer, even if in excess of the authority vested in them or overstepping the confines of their official duty, would nonetheless attract statutory protection, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the officer's official functions,” the Court observed.
This important interpretation came while the bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard the appeal in the case of G.C. Manjunath & Others vs. Seetaram. The appellants, who were police officers, were accused of wrongful confinement and physical assault of the complainant during investigation proceedings.
Background of the Case:
The complainant had filed a private complaint alleging that the police officers had misused their power by assaulting and illegally confining him. Acting on this complaint, the trial court had issued a summoning order. The accused police officers approached the Karnataka High Court, seeking to quash the summoning order, but their petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants took the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, after analyzing the facts and referring to precedent, set aside the High Court’s judgment. It observed that the Magistrate had erred in taking cognizance of the case without the necessary sanction, as mandated under Section 197 CrPC.
The Court stressed that the key test is whether the alleged act is reasonably connected to the public servant’s official duties, not whether the act was lawful.
“A mere excess or overreach in the performance of official duty does not, by itself, disentitle a public servant from the statutory protection mandated by law,” the Court held.
The Court pointed out that the complainant had been declared a “rowdy sheeter” by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Law and Order (West), Bengaluru, based on multiple criminal cases registered against him. The allegations of wrongful confinement and assault were said to have occurred during investigations of these cases.
“It is in the course of the investigation of these cases that the instant allegations have been levelled against the accused persons. As noted above, any action undertaken by a public officer, even if in excess of the authority vested in them or overstepping the confines of their official duty, would nonetheless attract statutory protection, provided there exists a reasonable nexus between the act complained of and the officer's official functions,” the Court emphasized.
The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain (2020) 7 SCC 695, which had laid down that a reasonable nexus test must be applied to determine whether prior sanction is required under Section 197 CrPC.
“The safeguard of obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority, as envisaged under Section 197 of the CrPC and Section 170 of the Police Act cannot be rendered nugatory merely because the acts alleged may have exceeded the strict bounds of official duty,” the Court stated.
Since the alleged acts took place during investigation and were connected to the accused's roles as police officers, the Court concluded that the absence of prior sanction vitiated the entire proceeding.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Hears Urgent Pleas Against Waqf Amendment Act 2025
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the police officers. The ruling reinforced that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against public servants without prior government sanction, if the acts are linked to their official responsibilities, even if such acts seem to overstep their authority.
“In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate erred in taking cognisance of the alleged offences against the accused persons without the requisite sanction for prosecution in the instant case. The absence of the necessary sanction vitiates the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: G.C. MANJUNATH & OTHERS VERSUS SEETARAM
Appearances:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil C Nishani, Adv. Mr. H L Jayram, Adv. Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Rohan Thwani, Adv. Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mrs. Saloni Sharan, Adv. Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sarbendra Kumar, Adv.
