Court directs authorities to ensure public servants are heard before sanctioning prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has reinforced the necessity of providing a right to hearing to public servants before granting sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The judgment, delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen on December 17, 2025, in the case of VK Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam, highlights the procedural safeguards that must be adhered to by competent authorities while considering prosecution sanctions.
The petitioner, VK Chacko, sought a direction for the forwarding of an inquiry report concerning alleged corruption within the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam (VFPCK) to the competent authority for sanction consideration. The inquiry report, prepared by a committee of directors, plays a crucial role in the decision to prosecute certain officials of the Council.
Justice Badharudeen emphasized that under Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, the competent authority is obligated to provide an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant before granting prosecution sanction. This provision is particularly pertinent when the request for sanction comes from individuals or entities other than official investigative agencies.
The court directed the second respondent to forward the inquiry report to the third respondent for consideration of sanction, stipulating that both the petitioner and the aggrieved respondent must be heard. This directive aligns with the proviso to Section 19(1)(c)(ii), ensuring that the rights of the public servant are protected during the sanction process.
Additionally, the judgment addressed objections raised by the fifth respondent, who contested the legal basis of his appointment and had filed a separate petition under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court dismissed these objections, reiterating the necessity of a hearing in the sanction process.
The decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to fair procedures and safeguards in corruption cases, ensuring that public servants are not unjustly prosecuted without due process. The court mandated a timeframe of three months for the competent authority to decide on the sanction, reinforcing the need for timely justice.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 - Section 19(1) - Competent authority to ensure right of hearing to the concerned public servant before granting sanction for prosecution - Direction issued to forward the inquiry report for consideration of sanction, with a mandate to hear both the petitioner and the aggrieved respondent.
Statutory provision(s): Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018, Section 19(1)(c)(ii); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
VK Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2835211
