When Are Public Servants' Offences Considered to be linked to Official Duties? Supreme Court Clarifies
The Supreme Court in Om Prakash Yadav v. Niranjan Kumar Upadhyay & Ors elucidated principles relating to Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which mandates prior government sanction for prosecuting public servants for acts done in the discharge of their official duties. The judgment, delivered by Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, clarified the scope of protection under Section 197 CrPC and outlined when an act qualifies as being performed in the course of official duty.
The Court denied Section 197 CrPC protection to police officers accused of fabricating evidence, stating that such actions fall outside their official duties. Justice Pardiwala, authoring the judgment, highlighted the following key principles:
1. Purpose: Section 197 aims to protect honest public servants from false or vexatious prosecutions related to their official duties while ensuring accountability for acts outside their lawful scope.
2. Interpretation: The phrase “acting or purporting to act in the discharge of official duty” requires balanced interpretation—strictly limiting it to acts within duty, but broadly covering genuine acts linked to official functions.
3. Judicial Scrutiny: Courts must carefully evaluate the facts to determine if the alleged act falls within official duties or warrants prosecution.
4. Integral Connection: The act must be directly linked to official duties to qualify for protection.
5. Reasonable Claim: The accused must reasonably assert that the act was performed by virtue of their office.
6. Reasonable Connection: A clear nexus between the act and official duty must exist, without reliance on pretended or fanciful claims.
7. Excess of Duty: Even acts exceeding official duties may be protected if they maintain a reasonable connection to the role.
8. Quality of the Act: Merely committing an act while holding office does not suffice; the act must arise from official duty.
9. Color of Office: Acts under the guise of official duty may receive protection only when genuinely linked to the role.
10. Case-Specific Test: Courts should assess whether neglecting the act would constitute dereliction of duty.
11. Prevention of Abuse: Protection cannot be used to shield criminal acts committed under the guise of public office.
12. Case-by-Case Basis: The applicability of Section 197 depends on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.
The judgment emphasizes that while Section 197 safeguards public servants, it must not serve as a tool for shielding unlawful acts unrelated to official duties.