Speaker's Permission Required to Prosecute Legislators Despite Absence of Statutory Sanctioning Authority Under P.C. Act

The Petitioner, a social activist, filed a private complaint (PCR No. 77/2020) against several Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), alleging they offered and received bribes to switch political parties, punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act).

The Trial Court initially took cognizance, but the High Court, in a previous challenge (W.P. No. 14322/2021), set aside the order and directed the complainant to obtain sanction for prosecution as per Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the P.C. Act.

The Petitioner applied to the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly for sanction, but on April 25, 2022, the Deputy Secretary issued a communication stating that since the Speaker is not the appointing authority for elected representatives, the question of granting sanction or permission for investigation does not arise.

The Petitioner challenged this endorsement via the present Writ Petition.

Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 regarding sanction for prosecution of public servants.

The principle that even if there is no technical 'appointing authority' for an MLA, the Speaker is the person competent to remove the person from office for the purpose of granting sanction under the P.C. Act.

The court examined the scope of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the necessity of obtaining sanction before a court can take cognizance of an offense against a public servant.

The court reasoned that the Speaker holds the administrative and disciplinary authority over the members of the House, and for the purposes of the P.C. Act, serves as the competent authority to decide on the grant of sanction to ensure legislators are not subjected to vexatious prosecutions without merit.

The Court set aside the impugned communication and directed the Speaker to reconsider the application for sanction in accordance with law.