Supreme Court grants relief to doctor accused of demanding bribe for knee surgery, imposes Rs 1 lakh cost on Rajasthan govt

In its order, the Supreme Court reiterated that sanction is a weapon to discourage frivolous and vexatious prosecution and safeguard the innocent. The top court bench comprising Justices JV Pardiwala and K Vinod Chandran further observed, "The decision-making process under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot resemble the dilemma in ‘Hamlet’s Soliloquy’: ‘to be or not to be’, though expressed in a different context. If there is ambivalence, it could be presumed that extraneous considerations weighed and here is a case where political dictate is blatantly displayed."

Background: 

The court made these observations while considering a case that concerned an accusation of bribery against a government doctor. The case arose from a complaint alleging that the petitioner-doctor had demanded Rs 5000 to Rs 6000 for the knee surgery of the complainant's relative. Payments were allegedly made on different dates. It was claimed that Rs 2000 was recovered from the drawer of the table at the official residence of the doctor, where he was arrested, in pursuance of a trap laid on March 29, 2017.

Initially, when the State Government considered whether to allow the prosecution of the doctor, the senior officials concluded that the evidence did not clearly show that the doctor had demanded or received a bribe.

After perusing the case file, it was noted that the transcript of the telephone conversation did not unequivocally establish that the accused officer received a bribe. It was also opined that the conversation transcript dated 27.03.2017 was not a demand for bribe, but the petitioner had stated the cost of steel plates to be implanted would be Rs 5000 to Rs 6000, in response to a specific query made to that end. It was noticed that since the patient was not eligible under an extant beneficial scheme, the amount would have to be borne by the patient himself.

Even though initially, the State had declined sanction for the doctor under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, later, the Joint Secretary of the Chief Minister referred back the matter for reconsideration, asserting that the money recovered from the petitioner's table drawer proved the acceptance of bribe. Ultimately, the Chief Secretary opined that the proposal for a sanction may be considered.

Aggrieved by this, the doctor challenged the approval for sanction before the Rajasthan High Court, which overturned it. Challenging this, the State approached the Apex Court bench.

Observations by Supreme Court: 

Taking note of the facts, the Supreme Court bench observed, "It is trite that, when there are two views possible, especially in proceeding with a criminal prosecution against a public servant, the view exonerating the officer should be taken, especially since the criminal prosecution can lead to a finding of guilt only if it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If the administrative authority itself expresses a doubt and suspicion regarding the demand of bribe, the trap laid and the recovery of the money there is no question of a sanction being granted, since it is a very reasonable and valid doubt."

It further noted that in this case, even on preponderance of possibilities, "there arises a case of victimization". "...which we notice only to emphasize that, in considering a sanction for prosecution, the standard should be of a possibility of bringing home the guilt of the delinquent, beyond reasonable doubt, a tad higher than mere preponderance of probabilities but surely not to the extent of finding concrete proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is the function of the jurisdictional court," further observed the bench.

Referring to the judgment in the case of Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat, the bench reiterated that sanction is a weapon to ensure discouragement of frivolous and vexatious prosecution and is a safeguard for the innocent but not a shield for the guilty

The bench also pointed out that, relying on the decision of State of H.P. v. Nishant Sareen, it was held that ‘Section 19 or, for that matter, Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not make any express provision regarding review or reconsideration of the matter by the sanctioning authorities once such power has been exercised’

Further, the bench referred to the judgments in the cases of Gopikant Choudhary v. State of Bihar, State of Punjab v. Mohd. Iqbal Bhatti and noted that "A mere change of opinion per se on the same materials cannot be a ground for review or reconsideration of an earlier order, refusing to grant sanction. A caveat was also made that, on the basis of fresh materials collected by the investigating agency, there could be a review of refusal to sanction, when there is a proper application of mind on the fresh materials which were not available at the earlier instance."

The bench noted that in the case of Sareen, the court found the approval of sanction to be vitiated since there were no fresh materials and it was motivated because a different opinion was expressed by the Vigilance Department. The facts clearly indicated non application of mind at the second instance, where the same materials were available for consideration, which had persuaded the officer to deny sanction at the earlier instance.

Referring to this, the bench observed that "The facts in the instant case also bring us to the very same conclusion."

Accordingly, it held that "The object of Section 19, to ensure that a public servant does not suffer harassment on false, frivolous, concocted and unsubstantiated allegations as observed in *** Sareen was also noticed. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned order, and we deprecate such instances bringing out interference leading to unnecessary harassment of public officers discharging public duties; which is sought to be avoided by Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act."

The bench held that the petitioner-doctor has been dragged unnecessarily to the High Court by the review, prompted by the office of the CM. It opined that the "State at least should have rested content, when the highest Constitutional Court within its boundaries, interfered with a patently illegal and blatantly tainted order of sanction."

Accordingly, the bench slapped Rs 1 lakh cost on the State of Rajasthan and ordered, "We hence dismiss the Special Leave Petition with the above observations and further direction to the State to pay cost quantified at Rs.50,000/- each, before the High Court and this Court. The costs shall be paid within a period of two months from today, failing which the petitioner would be entitled to move this Court by moving a M.A in the disposed of SLP bringing to our notice, the failure."

To view the order, click on the link below:

https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/01/state-of-rajasthan-sanction-362672.pdf

Also Read: Supreme Court seeks compliance affidavits on Allied Healthcare Professions Act implementation