Sanction Once Refused Under PC Act Cannot Be Overruled by Another Authority: Madhya Pradesh High Court

“Section 19(1) PC Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on competent authority — Once refused, sanction cannot be revisited or reversed under municipal powers”, In a decisive judgment that reinforces the sanctity and exclusivity of prosecution sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has ruled that a sanction once refused under Section 19(1) of the Act cannot be overridden, revisited, or revived by another authority, even if that authority claims concurrent jurisdiction under State municipal laws or amended service rules.

Division Bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh and Justice Ajay Kumar Nirankari categorically set aside prosecution sanctions issued by the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development Department, holding them to be “without jurisdiction”, “contrary to statutory mandate”, and violative of the scheme of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

“Once PIC Refused Sanction, There Was No Scope For Commissioner To Reopen The Matter”: Court Faults State’s Interference

At the heart of the case lay a fundamental question of administrative law: Can a Commissioner of a State Department, after a competent authority has refused to sanction prosecution under the PC Act, re-open the case and grant sanction citing subsequent rule amendments?

The Court answered in the negative, firmly stating:

“Once the competent authority refuses sanction, the same cannot be reviewed or overridden in absence of express statutory power. Subsequent sanction held without jurisdiction.” [Para 15]

In the present case, the petitioner, an Assistant Grade-II employee in the Municipal Council, Ashta, was facing prosecution under Sections 7, 13(1)(b), and 13(2) of the PC Act. The President-in-Council (PIC), the then competent authority under Section 19(1) of the Act, refused to grant sanction on October 12, 2022.

However, in a move termed by the Court as legally untenable, the Urban Administration and Development Department suo motu set aside the refusal order on May 30, 2023, and shortly thereafter, the Commissioner granted sanction afresh on July 17, 2023, citing an amendment to Rule 51 of the M.P. Municipal Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1968, which came into effect on December 15, 2022.

State’s Reliance on Section 323 of the M.P. Municipalities Act Rejected: “Provision Not Applicable to PC Act Sanctions”

The State had attempted to justify its actions by invoking Section 323 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961, arguing that it allowed oversight and intervention where municipal decisions were “not in conformity with law.”

But the Court drew a sharp boundary between general municipal supervision and the strict framework of the PC Act, ruling:

“The authority empowered under Section 323 of the Act of 1961 does not have any power to review the order passed earlier while refusing to grant prosecution sanction.” [Para 12]

Emphasizing that the PC Act is a special central legislation, the Bench held that its sanction regime under Section 19 is exclusive, exhaustive, and cannot be diluted by invoking State-level provisions.

“Any order passed under Section 19(3) of the PC Act, 1988 cannot be overturned by exercising the power under Section 323 of the Act of 1961.” [Para 12]

Rule Amendment Has No Retrospective Effect; Commissioner Cannot Override Earlier Refusal

The State also placed heavy reliance on the amendment to Rule 51, which purportedly gave the Commissioner concurrent powers to grant sanction. But the Court refused to give retrospective effect to a provision introduced after the PIC had already declined sanction.

“The authority empowered under this amended rule cannot retrospectively exercise the power to allow the sanction…overturning the sanction refused by the competent authority.” [Para 14]

The Court emphasized that such sanction decisions require independent application of mind, and cannot be delegated or imposed on another authority.

Judgment Reinforces Established SC Jurisprudence on Sanction: Bachhittar Singh, Subramanian Swamy, Gopikant Choudhary Cited

In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied on a string of Supreme Court authorities, including:

• Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh (AIR 2012 SC 1185), which clarified that the authority competent to remove the public servant at the time of alleged offence is the only one empowered to grant or refuse sanction;

• State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti (2009) 17 SCC 92, where it was held that once sanction is refused, prosecution cannot proceed unless there is fresh material;

• State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen (2010) 14 SCC 527 and Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar (2000) 9 SCC 53, reiterating the finality of a competent authority’s decision on sanction.

Mere Amendment or Circular Cannot Nullify A Sanction Decision Under Section 19(1)

The Court also brushed aside the State’s reliance on a 2014 circular by the General Administration Department, noting that administrative instructions cannot override statutory limitations imposed by the PC Act.

In particular, it noted that once the matter was decided by the competent authority under the PC Act, the only legally permissible course was to act in accordance with the statute — not to re-route the process via amended rules or department-level circulars.

“Sanction Cannot Be Granted De Hors Earlier Refusal”: No Scope for Concurrent Jurisdiction Once Competent Authority Has Acted

A key legal principle distilled by the Court was that even in cases where multiple authorities appear to have concurrent powers, once one competent authority has acted, the jurisdiction is exhausted.

“The order passed under Section 19(3) of the PC Act, 1988 by the competent authority cannot be set aside by exercising concurrent jurisdiction in the same matter.” [Para 14]

“Power under Section 19(1) for grant of sanction cannot be delegated… Sanction cannot be granted on the basis of a report given by some other officer.” [Para 14]

Sanction Orders Set Aside, Prosecution Quashed

The Court unequivocally allowed both writ petitions:

“The impugned orders dated 30.05.2023, 17.07.2023 and 24.04.2024 are set aside. All further proceedings originating from the sanction order also stand quashed.” [Paras 15–16]

The Bench further clarified that no costs were awarded, and that the ruling would apply equally to both connected writ petitions.

This judgment holds wide significance for public servants, investigative agencies, and administrative authorities operating under the Prevention of Corruption Act:

• It reaffirms that once sanction is refused, there is no second bite of the apple unless a fresh and independent material is presented to the same competent authority;

• It clarifies that State-level supervisory powers and service rule amendments cannot interfere with the statutory scheme of the PC Act;

• It upholds the constitutional principle that prosecution cannot proceed unless there is valid, lawful, and contemporaneous sanction from the appropriate authority.

The judgment serves as a timely reminder that statutory safeguards against arbitrary prosecution under anti-corruption laws must be respected, and procedural rigor cannot be bypassed by departmental enthusiasm.

Date of Decision: February 4, 2026