Criminal laws in India by way of “sanctions” allow for protective discrimination in favour of public officials.[1] Under various laws, sanctions are required to investigate and prosecute public officials. Over the past 15 years these provisions of law have been revisited by the judiciary and the legislature. Recently the Supreme Court in the Subramanian Swamy Case has suggested the concept of a deemed sanction. We look at the history of the requirement of sanction under criminal laws. Requirement of sanction to investigate certain public servants of the union government was introduced through a government notification[2]. The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 provide that to prosecute a public servant, permission or sanction has to be secured from the government (central or state) for which the official works. Arguments that are often advanced in favour of such sanctions are that these ensure that (a) frivolous and vexatious cases are not filed, (b) public officials are not harassed, and (c) the efficacy of administrative machinery is not tampered with. Further, the requirement of sanction to investigate was also defended by the government before the Supreme Court in certain cases. In Vineet Narain vs. Union of India 1997[3], the government had argued that the CBI may not have the requisite expertise to determine whether the evidence was sufficient for filing a prima facie case. It was also argued that the Act instituting the CBI, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (DSPE Act), granted the power of superintendence, and therefore direction, of the CBI to the central government. The Court in this case struck down the requirement of sanction to investigate. It held that “supervision” by the government could not extend to control over CBI’s investigations. As for prosecution, the Court affixed a time frame of three months to grant sanction. However, there was no clarity on what was to be done if sanction was not granted within such time. Following that judgment, the DSPE Act was amended in 2003, specifically requiring the CBI to secure a sanction before it investigated certain public servants. More recently, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 2011 that is pending before the Rajya Sabha, removed the requirement of sanction to investigate and prosecute public servants in relation to corruption. Recently, Mr. Subramanian Swamy approached the Supreme Court for directions on his request for sanction to prosecute Mr. A Raja in relation to the 2G Scam. As per the Supreme Court, judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr, Mr. Swamy’s request was pending with the department for over 16 months. The Supreme Court held that denial of a timely decision on grant of sanction is a violation of due process of law (Right to equality before law read with Right to life and personal liberty). The Court reiterated the three month time frame for granting sanctions. It suggested that Parliament consider that in case the decision is not taken within three months, sanction would be deemed to be granted. The prosecution would then be responsible for filing the charge sheet within 15 days of the expiry of this period.
[1] Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012 dated January 31, 2012
[2] Single Directive, No. 4.7.3
[3] AIR 1998 SC 889
In India, children between the age group of 6 and 14 years have the fundamental right to free and compulsory education. This right is implemented through the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act). The Act is applicable to all categories of schools (government and private). According to recent media reports (see here and here), many schools (including government schools) are flouting norms laid down in the RTE Act. Unaided schools have criticised state government over norms related to religious and linguistic status of minority schools (see here and here). The government has also faced flak over unclear norms on neighbourhood schools and reimbursement of money to private schools (see here, here and here). Most Acts ‘delegate’ the power to make rules and regulations for operationalising the law to the executive (Ministry). We provide an overview of the Rules notified by the state governments. The central government notified the RTE Rules 2010 on April 9, 2010, which are applicable to all schools under the central government, and in the five Union Territories without legislatures. Most of the states have notified similar Rules with a few variations. The Rules define the limits of a neighbourhood and make it mandatory for the local authority to maintain list of children within its jurisdiction. They also prescribe the composition of the School Management Committee to be formed in government schools. Private schools shall reserve 25% of the seats for disadvantaged children. These schools shall be reimbursed for either their tuition charge or the per-student expenditure in government schools, whichever is lower. All private schools have to be recognised before they can start operation. Recognition is contingent upon meeting the minimum standard laid down in the Act Existing private schools have to meet the norms within three years of commencement of the Act. If they are not compliant after three years, they shall cease to function. Government schools under the central government have to meet only two conditions: the minimum qualification for teachers and the student-teacher ratio. For all state government schools and un-adided schools, the power to make rules is delegated to the state government. The central government circulated Model Rules for the RTE Act to the states. All state governments, except Goa, have notified the state RTE Rules. Delhi and Puducherry have also notified them. Most of the states have notified similar Rules with a few variations. We list some of the variations. Andhra Pradesh: The break-up of the 25% quota among the various disadvantaged groups have been included in the Rules. Scheduled Castes: 10%; Scheduled Tribes: 4%; Orphans, disabled and HIV affected: 5% and children with parents whose annual income is lower than Rs 60,000: 6%. Rajasthan: Private schools either have to be affiliated with a university or recognised by any officer authorised by the state government. Karnataka: In addition to the minimum norms under RTE Act, private schools have to comply with the Karnataka Education Act, 1983. Gujarat: If an existing recognised school is unable to meet the infrastructure norms it may be given the option of demonstrating that it achieved certain learning outcomes, both in terms of absolute levels and as improvement from previous years. Uttar Pradesh: The government shall pay per child reimbursement to the school after it gives a list of children with their Unique Identity Number and other details. Kerala: The local authority has to maintain a record of all the children (0-14 years) within its jurisdiction. It shall also maintain the Unique Identity Number of every child, as and when issued by the competent authority, to monitor his enrolment, attendance and learning achievements. Haryana: Defines textbooks, uniform and writing material. It states that Hindi is to be the preferred medium of instruction in all schools. For using other language, permission of Director, Elementary Education Dept is required (to be given within 45 days or deemed to be granted). West Bengal: The Rules give detailed definition of the appropriate age for each class. They require schools to be set up in a relatively noise-free and pollution-free area with adequate supply of drinking water and electricity. Existing schools (which are already recognised or affiliated with a Board) may get the local municipal authorities to provide infrastructural support including relaxation of building rules to comply with the requirements of the Act. Additional sources
