Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer

A Public Servant Cannot Be Dragged Into Criminal Proceedings Without Due Process – In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings against Suneeti Toteja, a senior official of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), who was accused of criminal conspiracy and intimidation in a workplace sexual harassment case. The Court ruled that the absence of prior sanction for prosecution rendered the case against her legally unsustainable.

"The protection granted to public servants under Section 197 of the CrPC is not an empty formality. No prosecution can be sustained against a government officer performing official duties unless the competent authority grants prior sanction," the Court declared while setting aside the chargesheet and summoning order against Toteja.

The judgment comes as a strong reaffirmation of legal safeguards for public servants, ensuring that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated arbitrarily against government officials without proper procedural compliance.

"When an FIR Does Not Name a Person, Can She Be Prosecuted Years Later?"  

The case arose from an FIR filed in 2018 by Dr. Manisha Narayan, an officer of the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), alleging sexual harassment by her superior, Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta. The Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of FSSAI had conducted an inquiry in 2015, found Ghonkrorkta guilty, and recommended disciplinary action and criminal prosecution.

However, according to Dr. Narayan, FSSAI failed to act on the ICC's findings, compelling her to file an FIR against Ghonkrorkta and another officer, Sunil Kumar Bhadoria, under various sections of the IPC.

Suneeti Toteja, who was not initially named in the FIR, was added to the case only in 2020 after Dr. Narayan made a statement under Section 164 of the CrPC. The allegations against Toteja primarily revolved around her role as Presiding Officer of the ICC, where she was accused of filing a counter affidavit in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on behalf of the complainant without her consent and later pressuring her to withdraw the case.

"An FIR must set the foundation for a criminal case. If an officer’s name does not surface in the initial stages of investigation, but is suddenly introduced years later, the courts must examine the intent behind such allegations," the Supreme Court observed while scrutinizing the delay in implicating Toteja.

"Deemed Sanction is a Fiction That Does Not Exist in Law": Supreme Court Rejects State’s Argument

The Uttar Pradesh Police contended that because the sanctioning authority did not respond within the stipulated time, a 'deemed sanction' came into effect, allowing the prosecution to proceed without explicit approval.

Rejecting this argument outright, the Supreme Court held: "Section 197 of the CrPC does not recognize the concept of 'deemed sanction.' If a sanctioning authority refuses to grant approval, the prosecution cannot proceed. The Magistrate erred in assuming otherwise."

The Court distinguished the case from earlier rulings in Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1998) and Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012), clarifying that those cases dealt with corruption and did not establish any principle of deemed sanction under the CrPC.

"A sanction is a procedural safeguard, not a bureaucratic delay that can be bypassed. Public servants cannot be made scapegoats in legal proceedings that fail to comply with the law," the judgment stated.

"When an Officer Acts in Her Official Capacity, Can Criminal Liability Be Imposed?" – Supreme Court on Misuse of Criminal Law

The Court closely examined the actions of Suneeti Toteja as the Presiding Officer of the ICC and concluded that her alleged acts were within the scope of her official duty.

"Even if an officer's actions do not align with a complainant's expectations, this does not automatically make them criminal. Missteps in administrative duty must be addressed within the framework of service law, not through criminal prosecution," the Court observed.

The Court found that Toteja had merely filed a counter affidavit before the CAT defending the ICC’s findings and had later respected the complainant’s request to be independently represented.

"If an affidavit was filed without explicit authorization, it is a procedural irregularity, not a criminal act. The law must distinguish between professional errors and actual wrongdoing," the Supreme Court emphasized.

"Criminal Law is Not a Tool for Workplace Disputes": Supreme Court Warns Against Misuse of Legal Provisions

The Supreme Court strongly cautioned against the weaponization of criminal law in administrative disputes, warning that such cases erode the integrity of both governance and the justice system.

"Not every workplace disagreement warrants a criminal trial. If administrative processes are bypassed and criminal charges are misused, it sets a dangerous precedent," the Court stated while stressing that disciplinary issues must be resolved through service rules, not criminal litigation.

It further observed that: "Criminal prosecution cannot be used as a tool of vendetta against officials who were merely performing their designated roles. Courts must prevent the legal system from becoming an arena for workplace battles."

"When There is No Sanction, There is No Case": Supreme Court Quashes Proceedings Against Toteja

The Supreme Court ruled that the Magistrate had no authority to take cognizance of the case against Toteja without prior sanction from BIS.

"The very foundation of this prosecution is flawed. The necessary sanction was neither granted nor could it be deemed to have been granted. Without it, the entire proceedings stand vitiated," the Court declared.

With this ruling, the Court set aside the chargesheet, the summoning order, and all subsequent criminal proceedings against Toteja.

"Justice must be blind to external pressures. If the law requires sanction, the absence of sanction makes the case untenable. Courts cannot ignore these fundamental protections," the judgment concluded.

"Public Servants Must Not Work Under Fear of Frivolous Criminal Cases" – Supreme Court Upholds Protections Under CrPC

The ruling in Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. stands as a landmark judgment protecting public servants from arbitrary criminal prosecution. The Court clarified the scope of Section 197 of the CrPC, rejected the concept of 'deemed sanction', and upheld the principle that workplace disputes must not be criminalized.

"The law exists to ensure fairness, not to serve as a tool for harassment. When procedural safeguards are ignored, it is not just the accused who suffers, but the entire justice system," the Supreme Court declared.

With this verdict, the Supreme Court has drawn a firm line between governance and criminal liability, ensuring that public servants can discharge their duties without the looming threat of legal vendettas.

Date of Decision: 25 February 2025