The Supreme Court today (July 23) reserved judgment in a plea moved by Tamil Nadu Health Minister Ma. Subramanian and his wife, challenging the Madras High Court’s order refusing to quash the chargesheet against them in an illegal government land grabbing case in Guindy, Chennai.
The Court dealt with an interesting issue of law as to whether a sanction to prosecute Subramanian, who is now a State Minister, would be required for an offence allegedly committed while holding the post of Mayor but, cognizance for which was taken filed after he had vacated the office.
That is, is sanction required to prosecute a public servant for an office which he is alleged to have committed, but on the date of taking cognisance he holds an entirely different public office which he is neither alleged to have misused nor abused.
A bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Aravind Kumar heard the special leave petition against the March 28 order of the Madras High Court refusing to quash a 2019 chargesheet against Subramanian and his wife. The Court ordered the commencement of trial.
While the State Counsel for Tamil Nadu argued that Subramanian wasn’t a Mayor when the case was registered and therefore, no sanction would be required to prosecute him in respect of that case despite the fact that the cognizance is taken now when holds a public office as a State Minister, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, for the State Health Minister, and Senior Advocate P Wilson, for Subramanian’s wife, opposed this argument.
Rohatgi said that even though when he was chargesheeted he did not hold a public office as a Mayor, but now he does as a State Minister. So, a sanction would be required since he is a public servant now. But the sanctioning authority would be the one which was competent to remove him from the position he held earlier as Mayor.
He said, “A public servant can wear many hats. The question is, a person may have been an MLA. That term is over; he became an MP. So, in a given case, for an MP, the [authority] would be Speaker here and for MLA, it would be Speaker of the Assembly. It only relates to the offence for which he has abused the office. However, can a Speaker at Lok Sabha grant sanction in respect of a person who is today a minister but was an MLA ten years ago…”