In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court elaborated on the principles regarding the application of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which grants protection to public servants from prosecution for acts done in the discharge of their official duties without prior sanction from the government. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra, clarified when alleged acts can be considered as performed in the course of official functions.
The discussion arose while rejecting protection under Section 197 CrPC for police officials accused of fabricating evidence and creating a bogus case. The Court held that such acts fall outside the scope of official duties, and hence, no sanction is required for prosecuting them.
The judgment, authored by Justice Pardiwala, outlined the following principles derived from precedents:
Key Principles on Section 197 CrPC:
- Objective of Section 197 CrPC:
The provision aims to shield public servants from false or vexatious criminal proceedings for actions taken while performing official duties. It ensures honest officers can discharge their duties effectively, without fear of harassment or demoralization. - Balanced Interpretation:
The phrase “any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” should neither be interpreted too narrowly nor too broadly. Acts performed in the course of official duties should be construed liberally, provided they are integrally connected to the discharge of such duties. - Application of Mind:
Courts must carefully examine the facts of each case to determine whether the act in question falls within the scope of official duty. While protecting genuine acts, courts must also ensure accountability for actions outside official functions. - Scope of Official Duties:
For an act to qualify for protection under Section 197, it must be integrally connected to the public servant’s official responsibilities. The focus is on whether the act itself is linked to the duty, rather than the nature of the duty. - Reasonable Claim of Acting in Office:
A key test is whether the public servant can reasonably claim that the act was performed as part of their official role. - Reasonable Connection:
There must be a reasonable link between the act and the discharge of official duties. The accused must demonstrate a genuine, not fanciful, connection to their role. - Acts in Excess of Duty:
If a public servant exceeds their official duties, they may still be protected under Section 197 if a reasonable connection exists between the act and their official responsibilities. - Quality of the Act:
The nature and purpose of the act must be examined. Simply exploiting one’s position to commit an offence is not enough to invoke protection under Section 197. - Acting vs. Purporting to Act:
The distinction between “acting” and “purporting to act” implies that even actions performed under the guise of office may attract protection. However, this protection should not be stretched to cover clearly illegal acts. - Color of Office:
Acts done under the “color of office” may attract protection, but the connection to official duties must be direct and reasonable, not pretended or artificial. - Sanction Not Needed for Illegal Acts:
When the alleged acts fall outside the scope of official duties, such as fabricating evidence, as in the present case, the requirement for government sanction does not apply. - Opportunity Alone Insufficient:
The mere fact that a public servant’s official position provided the opportunity to commit an offence does not automatically grant protection under Section 197.
Background
The Court emphasized that Section 197 is meant to strike a balance between ensuring accountability and protecting sincere public servants. In the present case, the alleged fabrication of evidence by police officers was deemed unrelated to their official duties, denying them protection under Section 197.
This judgment further clarifies the nuanced application of Section 197 CrPC and reinforces the principle that protection should not extend to acts beyond the legitimate scope of official duties.
