AR Antulay vs RS Nayak
1988 AIR 1531
Case Summary
[Article 21]
FACTS
The appellant, A.R. Antulay, former chief minister of Maharashtra, was accused of corruption under the prevention of corruption act, 1988. A complaint was filed against him, and a special judge was appointed to investigate the charges. However, Antulay sought to quash the proceedings, arguing that no prosecution could be initiated without prior sanction from the state government, as required under section 197 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC). The case thus raised the issue of whether prior sanction was necessary to prosecute a public official for acts allegedly committed during their official tenure, particularly when the offense was not directly related to their official duties.
ISSUES
Whether prior sanction under section 197 of the CRPC is required to prosecute a public official like Antulay for acts committed while in office.
Whether the prosecution, initiated by the special judge without such sanction, is legally valid.
Whether the charges were politically motivated and intended to tarnish the appellant's reputation.
RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISIONS
Section 197 of the criminal procedure code (CRPC) – requires prior sanction from the government before prosecuting a public servant for offenses committed in the course of their official duties. Article 14 of the constitution of India – guarantees equality before the law.
Article 21 of the constitution of India – guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including protection against arbitrary prosecution.
The prevention of corruption act, 1988 – specifically targets corruption among public servants, allowing for their prosecution if they engage in corrupt practices.
JUDGMENT
The supreme court ruled in favour of R.S. Nayak (the special judge), holding that prior sanction under section 197 of the CRPC was not required for prosecuting A.R. Antulay in this case. The court reasoned that the alleged acts of corruption committed by Antulay were not part of his official duties and, therefore, did not fall under the protective umbrella of section 197. The court emphasized that public officials, including high-ranking leaders like the chief minister, are not immune from prosecution if they commit criminal acts like corruption. The court also rejected Antulay's claim that the prosecution was politically motivated, noting that the judiciary would not interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings unless there was clear evidence of malafide intent. The decision reinforced the principle that public officials must be held accountable for their actions, particularly when they are accused of serious offenses like corruption.
The court also rejected Antulay's claim that the prosecution was politically motivated, noting that the judiciary would not interfere with the initiation of criminal proceedings unless there was clear evidence of mala fide intent. The decision reinforced the principle that public officials must be held accountable for their actions, particularly when they are accused of serious offenses like corruption.
Vikas Meena
