Protecting Public Servants: The Supreme Court’s Bold Move in the Suneeti Toteja Case

In a significant ruling the Supreme Court of India quashed criminal proceedings against appellant, a senior official at the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). The case, which revolved around allegations of sexual harassment and misconduct, raised critical questions about the necessity of sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

What's the Matter ?

The case originated from a complaint filed by Dr. Manisha Narayan, who alleged that she was sexually harassed by Dr. S.S. Ghonkrorkta, the Enforcement Director at the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI), during her tenure there. An Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) was constituted to investigate the allegations, and in its report submitted on June 22, 2015, it found Dr. Ghonkrorkta guilty of the charges. The ICC recommended that an FIR be registered against him and that appropriate disciplinary action be taken against other officers involved in the misconduct.

However, when no action was taken by the FSSAI, Dr. Narayan filed an FIR on October 30, 2018, against Dr. Ghonkrorkta and another official, Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhadoria. Notably, Suneeti Toteja, the appellant in this case, was not named in the FIR. Her name surfaced later during the complainant's statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC on October 14, 2020.

The allegations against Suneeti Toteja primarily revolved around her role as the Presiding Officer (PO) of the ICC at FSSAI. It was alleged that she filed a counter affidavit before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on behalf of the complainant without her knowledge or consent. Additionally, the complainant accused Toteja of threatening her to withdraw the case and pressuring her to accept a transfer from Delhi to Chennai.

Based on these allegations, a chargesheet was filed on July 2, 2022, naming Toteja as the fourth accused. The chargesheet included offences under Sections 509, 120B, 192, 354A, 506, 202, 218, 204, and 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, took cognizance of the chargesheet and issued summons against the accused, including Toteja.

What happened in Court?

Toteja, along with two other co-accused, filed a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC before the Allahabad High Court, seeking to quash the chargesheet and the summoning order. However, the High Court dismissed the petition on November 16, 2022, while granting Toteja the liberty to approach the Magistrate for bail.

Toteja then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's order. Her primary contention was that, as a government servant, she was entitled to protection under Section 197 of the CrPC, which mandates that no court can take cognizance of an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant in the discharge of their official duties without prior sanction from the competent authority.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment delivered by Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, quashed the criminal proceedings against Toteja. The Court held that the actions of Toteja, including filing the counter affidavit before the CAT, were performed in her official capacity as the Presiding Officer of the ICC. Therefore, prior sanction for prosecution was required under Section 197 of the CrPC.

The Court emphasized that the test for determining whether sanction is necessary is whether the act in question is connected to the discharge of official duties. In this case, the Court found that Toteja's actions were indeed connected to her official duties, and thus, sanction was required.

The Court also rejected the argument of "deemed sanction," which was advanced by the respondent-State and the complainant. The Court clarified that Section 197 of the CrPC does not envisage the concept of deemed sanction, and the absence of sanction within the stipulated time does not automatically imply that sanction has been granted.

The judgment reinforces the protection afforded to public servants under Section 197 of the CrPC. It ensures that public servants can perform their duties without the constant fear of criminal prosecution, provided their actions are within the scope of their official duties.

By rejecting the concept of deemed sanction, the Court has provided clarity on the necessity of explicit sanction from the competent authority. This will prevent prosecuting agencies from proceeding with cases against public servants without proper sanction.

The Supreme Court's decision to quash the criminal proceedings against Suneeti Toteja is a significant ruling that reaffirms the protection available to public servants under Section 197 of the CrPC.

The judgment provides much-needed clarity on the necessity of sanction for prosecution and rejects the notion of deemed sanction. It also highlights the importance of ensuring that public servants can perform their duties without fear of unjustified criminal prosecution.

Legal Topics Discussed in the case

Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013(SH Act, 2013)

The POSH Act is a law in India that protects women from sexual harassment at work. It requires employers to create a safe working environment and set up a committee to handle complaints.

https://wcd.delhi.gov.in/wcd/sexual-harassment-women-workplaceprevention-prohibition-and-redressal-act-2013sh-act-2013

Code of Criminal Procedure 1972

Section 197.   Prosecution of Judges and public servants.

(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction 1[save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]--

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government:

2[Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression "State Government" occurring therein, the expression "Central Government" were substituted.]

3[Explanation.--For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, 4[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]

(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted.

5[(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.

(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.]

(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.

Section 164.   Recording of confessions and statements.

(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:

1[Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:

Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.]

(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.

(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.

(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:--

"I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.

(Signed) A. B.

Magistrate."

(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.

2[(5A) (a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, 3[section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB,] section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed in sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police:

Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement:

Provided further that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator, shall be video graphed.

(b) A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.]

(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried..

Indian Penal code (IPC)

Section 509 (Insulting modesty of a woman):  Deals with words, gestures, or acts intended to insult the modesty of a woman.

Section 120B (Criminal conspiracy):  Deals with the offense of being a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for two years or more.

Section 192 (Fabricating false evidence):  Deals with the offense of intentionally giving false evidence, or fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding.

Section 354A (Sexual harassment):  Deals with various forms of sexual harassment, including physical contact, unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures, demanding or requesting sexual favors, showing pornography, and making sexually colored remarks.

Section 506 (Criminal intimidation): Deals with the offense of threatening any person with injury to his person, reputation or property, with intent to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which he is legally entitled to do, as a means of avoiding such alarm.   

Section 202 (Intentional omission to give information respecting an offense): Deals with the offense of intentionally omitting to give any information to a public servant which he is legally bound to give, respecting the commission of any offence.

Section 218 (Public servant framing an incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment): Deals with a public servant who, being such servant, and knowing that he is such servant, frames any record or writing which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person.

Section 204 (Destruction of document or electronic record to prevent its production as evidence): Deals with the offense of destroying or secreting any document or electronic record which is likely to be needed as evidence in a legal proceeding.

Section 197 (Issuing or signing false certificate): Deals with the offense of issuing or signing any certificate required by law to be given or signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is false. 

Thanks For Visiting!!