No sanction required under BNSS to prosecute public servants for disproportionate assets, rules Madras High Court

You don’t have any Active Subscription.

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The judge concurred with Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani that the sanction would be necessary only when the alleged offence had a reasonable connection or nexus with the discharge of the official duties by a public servant. | Photo Credit: PICHUMANI K

The charge against public servants of having amassed wealth disproportionate to known sources of income has no reasonable connection or nexus with the discharge of official duties and hence there is no need for the police to obtain sanction, either under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), to prosecute them, the Madras High Court has held.

Justice V. Lakshminarayanan passed the ruling while refusing to discharge Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) former Minister M.R.K. Panneerselvam, his wife P. Senthamizhselvi and son P. Kathiravan from a 2011 disproportionate assets case booked by the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption (DVAC).

The judge concurred with Additional Public Prosecutor Arun Anbumani that sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., which corresponds to Section 218 of the BNSS, would be necessary only when the alleged offence had a reasonable connection or nexus with the discharge of the official duties by a public servant.

“The allegation in the present case is under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Amassing wealth beyond known sources of income cannot be treated as one having nexus to discharging official duty. While Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure has been engrafted for the purpose of protecting serving and retired public servants, it is not necessary to take such sanction when the alleged offence has no nexus to the discharge of official duties,” the judge wrote.

Though Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act insists upon obtaining sanction before prosecuting public servants under select provisions of the law, the judge said, even that provision would not apply in the present case since Mr. Panneerselvam had demitted office and was no longer a Minister when the court concerned took cognisance of the alleged offences.

The charge against the accused was that they were unable to satisfactorily account for ₹3.01 crore in their possession during the check period between April 15, 2006 and March 21, 2011 when Mr. Panneerselvam had served as Health Minister in the then Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi’s Cabinet.

The Cuddalore Principal District and Sessions Court had on June 30, 2026 rejected the plea of the accused to discharge them from the case and hence they had approached the High Court with the present criminal revision petition which too was dismissed on Tuesday (September 22, 2026).

Justice Lakshminarayanan wondered how could the accused file a second discharge petition when their first discharge plea made in 2013 was allowed by the Cuddalore Chief Judicial Magistrate in 2016 but the order was reversed by the High Court in 2025 on a revision petition filed by the DVAC.

While reversing the discharge order, Justice P. Velmurugan of the High Court had ordered conduct of speedy trial because the case had been pending for long number of years. Though the accused took the High Court’s order on appeal to the Supreme Court, the special leave petition (SLP) before the top court was withdrawn.

Rejecting the argument that withdrawal of the SLP with liberty to approach the appropriate forum would amount to the top court having set aside the High Court’s order, the judge said: “The effect of a withdrawal of the SLP is that the order of this Court dated April 15, 2025 stood confirmed. Nowhere did the Supreme Court hold the order passed in allowing the revision is set aside.”

The judge also found that transfer of cases pending against MPs and MLAs from the Chief Judicial Magistrates to the Principal District and Sessions Judges, after designating the latter as special courts, was not serving the purpose of ensuring speedy trial since the cases any way get clogged before the sessions courts too. He directed the High Court Registry to place the issue before the Chief Justice for taking a suitable decision in this regard.

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.