Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence

“Mere Addition of UAPA Sections Without Fresh Material Cannot Cure Earlier Deficiency” – In a decisive ruling affirming constitutional safeguards against arbitrary criminal prosecution under anti-terror laws, the Supreme Court of India on 16 December 2025 quashed the Jharkhand Government’s prosecution sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against multiple accused, holding that the sanction was granted mechanically, without any fresh or additional material, and despite earlier detailed rejections.

The judgment came in Binod Kumar Pandey @ Vinod Kumar Pandey v. State of Jharkhand and Others, a batch of appeals (Criminal Appeal Nos. of 2026 arising from SLP (Crl.) Nos. 1087, 3674, and 3543 of 2025) decided by a Division Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, setting aside a common judgment of the Jharkhand High Court dated 18 December 2024 which had dismissed writ petitions challenging the prosecution sanction dated 3 October 2023.

The Supreme Court ruled that sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA is not a mere formality and must reflect application of mind to substantive evidence justifying prosecution under anti-terror provisions. The sanctioning authority must demonstrate why it departed from earlier rejections, especially where previous proposals had been declined due to lack of evidence.

“Law is well settled that grant of sanction to prosecute is not an empty formality but a sacrosanct act,” held the Court, while observing that the State had failed to bring on record any fresh material justifying the third-time sanction.

“Once Rejected, A Sanction Proposal Must Explicitly Show New Material to Justify Reconsideration” – Court Lays Down Procedural Safeguards

The case stemmed from an FIR dated 17 January 2022 (Case No. 1/2022, A.T.S. Police Station, Ranchi), which alleged that the appellants were part of a gang led by gangster Aman Shrivastava, extorting money from businessmen and routing it through hawala channels. Huge sums of cash were seized from various accused, including ₹28.55 lakh and ₹5.42 lakh from Siddarth Sahu and Binod Kumar Pandey respectively.

Initially, the accused were booked under Sections 386, 387, 109, 120-B, 201 and 34 IPC and Sections 20 and 21 UAPA. However, the State Government twice refused to grant prosecution sanction under UAPA, first on 20 December 2022 and again on 21 March 2023, citing lack of sufficient evidence.

Despite these rejections, the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, forwarded a third proposal on 9 June 2023, this time including additional UAPA Sections 16, 17, and 18, but again without any indication of fresh material. Based on this, the State issued a prosecution sanction on 3 October 2023, which became the subject of writ petitions before the High Court.

The Supreme Court found that the third sanction order neither disclosed nor relied upon any new material, and that the only change was the invocation of additional sections of UAPA, which, in the Court’s view, did not constitute new evidence.

“Mere invocation of additional offences without there being additional or fresh material to support the allegations would not validate the sanction order unless the Court is satisfied that the same was issued with due application of mind,” the Court ruled.

“Sanction Lacks Credible Material, Suffering from Non-Application of Mind” – SC Slams Jharkhand Government’s Arbitrary Action

The Bench took serious note of the fact that the sanctioning authority did not even refer to the earlier rejections, nor did it explain why it was now satisfied to grant sanction under the same set of facts.

“The order must reflect, in clear terms, what persuaded the authority to depart from the earlier view and to arrive at a different conclusion,” the Court emphasised.

The judgment made extensive reference to the precedent set in State of Telangana v. C. Shobha Rani, holding that a sanction order based on the same material as a previously rejected one cannot be sustained in law.

In a particularly critical observation, the Court stated:

“The sanction order dated 3 October 2023 was passed without any basis, without due application of mind and in a totally mechanical manner.”

The Court further rejected the respondent State’s arguments that procedural delay or administrative hurdles in the earlier sanctioning process should excuse the lack of fresh evidence.

“Such an approach is absolutely unjustified as it compels an accused to undergo the rigours of a trial even when the foundational sanction to prosecute is defective beyond the scope of retrieval,” the Court held.

“High Court Erred in Forcing Accused to Face Trial Despite Defective Sanction” – Judicial Review at Pre-Trial Stage is Permissible

Crucially, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s view that the validity of sanction could only be challenged after evidence was led at trial, holding that judicial review of a flawed sanction is maintainable at the earliest stage.

“Relegating the accused persons to raise this issue before the trial Court after recording of evidence was nothing short of an exercise in futility,” the Bench observed.

The judgment cited State of Karnataka v. S. Subbegowda (2023 SCC OnLine SC 911) to underscore that competence of the trial court itself hinges on the validity of sanction, making it imperative to resolve the issue at the pre-trial stage.

“It is always desirable to raise the issue of validity of sanction at the earliest point of time,” the Court reaffirmed.

The Court also rebuked the State’s attempt to introduce fresh justifications during litigation, making it clear that:

“The State Government cannot be allowed to supplement or augment the material placed before the sanctioning authority at the appellate stage… The only perceivable difference was invocation of additional offences under the UAP Act, which by itself cannot constitute fresh or substantive material.”

UAPA Charges Dropped, IPC Trial to Continue

In view of these findings, the Court quashed the sanction order dated 3 October 2023 as well as the entire prosecution under Sections 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the UAP Act. However, it allowed the prosecution to proceed for the IPC offences, which had already been framed.

“Resultantly, the sanction order dated 3rd October, 2023 and the consequential prosecution of the appellants for the offences under Sections 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 of the UAP Act is hereby quashed. However, prosecution of the appellants shall continue for the offences punishable under the IPC,” the Court ordered.

“Sanction Under UAPA is Not a Ritual—It Must Survive Constitutional Scrutiny”

This decision is a significant reaffirmation of the constitutional safeguards embedded in Section 45 of the UAPA, and a stern reminder that state action under extraordinary criminal statutes must be backed by independent, cogent material and not guided by mere procedural insistence or investigative pressure.

Date of Decision: 16 December 2025