Remove sanction clause to prosecute leaders: PIL

NEW DELHI: Questioning UP Governor TV Rajeswar’s decision of not according sanction for prosecution of chief minister Mayawati in Rs 175-crore Taj Corridor case, a PIL has been moved in the Supreme Court seeking to dispense with the statutory provision mandating prior sanction of competent authorities for prosecuting politicians and public servants.

Seeking a direction to the Centre, states and Union Territories to prosecute tainted politicians and public servants within a specified period, the petition alleged that the provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act which mandates such prior sanction leaves immense scope for political favouritism and vendetta.

The petition filed by advocate Manzoor Ali Khan has said that Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) was violative of Article 14 (equality before law) and Article 21 (protection of life and liberty). The petition has said that section 19 of the PCA conferred arbitrary power to central and state governments.

The petition said that MPs, MLAs and public servants against whom various cases were pending could not be prosecuted for want of appropriate sanction. But on the other hand, there are instances where governments, on account of political rivalry, instantly grant sanction to prosecute tainted political rivals and public servants. In these circumstances, the provisions of section 19 are subject to discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of power depending on the sweet will of the concerned authorities, said the petition.

The petition zeroed in on the recent decision of the UP Governor to not accord sanction for prosecuting of Ms Mayawati in the Taj Corridor case despite the apex court’s direction to the CBI to place all evidence/material collected by the latter before the special judge.

The petition also mentioned how the apex court, considering all the relevant documentary evidence on record, had held Captain Satish Sharma, then minisiter for petroleum and natural gas, guilty of misusing power and authority. However, the Centre did not grant sanction to prosecute him. Similarly, Sheila Kaul, as minister for urban development, was found guilty of misuse of power by the SC, which then directed her prosecution. However, for want of appropriate sanction, she was not prosecuted said the petitioner.

According to the petition, the rationale behind imposing Section 19 was to prevent malicious prosecution of public figures and public servants, but the beneficial provision was being misused by the vested interests to obtain immunity from prosecution for their “corrupt” actions.