State v. M. Muneer Ahamed CrPC - PC Act - Deemed Sanction - Referred To Larger Bench
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 197 ; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 217 ; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Deemed Sanction Concept - In this case, High Court directed: All the competent authorities including His Excellency Governor have to decide the issuance of sanction to prosecute the accused either under the prevention of corruption Act 1988 or under 197 CrPC within one month from the date of receipt of this copy of order, if the period fixed either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by statute has already lapsed. If no decision is taken, sanction will be deemed to have been granted for the proposed prosecution.” - Issue of deemed sanction concept -Referred to larger bench.
Case Info
Case name: State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police v. M. Muneer Ahamed & Anr.Court: Supreme Court of IndiaCoram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra SharmaJudgment / Order date (SC): 13 February 2026Impugned judgment date (HC): 22 November 2024Case type and number: Special Leave Petition (Criminal), Diary No(s). 4380/2026
Neutral citation is not mentioned in the text of this order.
Caselaws Cited (with Citations)
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64
- Suneeti Toteja v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 433
Statutes / Laws Referred
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 197
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 217 and Section 193
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (referred to regarding sanction for prosecution)
Brief Summary (Three Sentences)
The Supreme Court was dealing with a challenge by the State of Tamil Nadu to a Madras High Court order which, while refusing to quash criminal proceedings, had issued directions that sanction to prosecute public servants must be decided within one month, failing which sanction would be deemed granted. The Court noted that the High Court had relied on paragraph 81 of the concurring judgment in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh to support a concept of deemed sanction, but a coordinate bench in Suneeti Toteja v. State of Uttar Pradesh had already held that even that decision does not endorse deemed sanction. Considering recurring complaints about delays in sanction and the broader implications, the Supreme Court referred the issue to a larger Bench and, in the meantime, stayed the High Court’s direction that sanction would be deemed granted if not decided within one month.