Raja and Yeddyurappa: Similar Cases, But Action Poles Apart
New Delhi, Jan 27(TOI): Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Karnataka governor H R Bhardwaj faced an identical question — whether to grant sanction for prosecution of a minister on a private complaint alleging corruption charges. The PM took the stand before the Supreme Court that a private person has to first file his complaint before a competent court.
If the court was prima facie satisfied about the veracity of the complaint and decided to issue notice to the accused, only then could the private complainant seek grant of sanction from the sanctioning authority, that is the PM. Bhardwaj's stand in granting sanction to prosecute Karnataka chief minister B S Yeddyurappa even before a complaint was filed in court contradicts the PM's stand before the Supreme Court.
On January 21, Bhardwaj gave permission to prosecute Yeddyurappa for corruption charges exactly a month after some lawyers had filed a complaint before the governor. The lawyers moved court the very next day and filed their complaint against the chief minister.
The governor defended his action saying his decision was fortified by an earlier SC decision. Bhardwaj also said he could not keep quiet when the land scam had allegedly cost the state Rs 500 crore.
The PM had refused to grant sanction to Janata Party president Subramanian Swamy, who sought prosecution of then telecom minister A Raja for irregular allotment of 2G spectrum licences for mobile phone services.
Swamy had sought sanction from PM on November 29, 2008. He had challenged the silence on the part of the PMO on the issue of sanction to prosecute Raja. The court had sought an answer from the PMO.
Attorney general G E Vahanvati had on November 23 last year told a Bench of Justices G S Singhvi and A K Ganguly that the PM's stand on the issue was a well-settled legal proposition. "The question of sanction cannot and does not arise" because Swamy had not filed his complaint before a competent court, he had said.
The AG had termed Swamy's plea to be "misconceived" because he had sought "sanction for prosecution even without filing a complaint before a court".
"There is no question of consideration of sanction for cognizance when no complaint at all was filed. It is settled law that there is no question of sanction merely on the institution of complaint," Vahanvati had said.
The AG had said a private complainant like Swamy could move the sanctioning authority (PM) for grant of permission only after a competent court found his complaint prima facie disclosing commission of an offence and decided to issue notice to the accused.
The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on Swamy's petition to determine the legal position on grant of sanction.