High court sets aside 'arbitrary' denial of prosecution sanction against SIT

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside orders denying sanction to prosecute four members of the Special Investigation Team (SIT), accused of framing school bus conductor in the Gurugram school student murder case.

Advertisement

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari made it clear that the order under challenge was arbitrary and failed the test of legality, warranting judicial interference. The case stems from the tragic murder of a seven-year-old boy — a second-grade student. He was found dead on the school premises in 2017. Initially investigated by the Haryana Police, the case saw the arrest of the conductor, Ashok Kumar, as the prime accused. But widespread public outrage and media scrutiny led the Haryana Government to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

After taking over, the CBI claimed that the murder was allegedly committed by a juvenile student of the same school 'Bholu', an alias assigned by the trial court to protect the minor’s identity. The CBI further concluded that Ashok Kumar had been implicated by the SIT through fabricated evidence and coerced witness statements.

The CBI subsequently sought sanction under Section 197, CrPC, to prosecute four SIT members, citing their involvement in creating false documents and pressuring witnesses. But the government declined the request through orders dated February 19, 2021, which were challenged in the high court.

Justice Tiwari examined the record before observing that the sanctioning authority dismissed the CBI's request without considering the incriminatory evidence presented against the respondents. The court also drew a distinction between "inaccurate documentation" and the "creation of false documents".

Justice Tiwari observed that "inaccurate documentation" might arise from negligence or incompetence, but the latter involved deliberate intent to deceive. The court held that the SIT members' actions fell into the latter category. “This court has reproduced the details of false document created by the errant officials/respondents. The said documents cannot be considered as inaccurate documents,” the court observed.

Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in the “M.P. Special Police Establishment” case, Justice Tiwari asserted non-consideration of relevant material rendered an administrative order unsustainable. The court observed that the sanctioning authority failed to provide reasons for rejecting the CBI's request, making the orders non-speaking and devoid of legal merit.

“It is a trite law that, reasons are nexus between the conclusion reached and the facts in question. In the absence of any reasons being assigned, an administrative order can be termed as a non-speaking order. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to conclude that in the absence of any reference being made by the sanctioning authority to the incriminatory evidence produced by the CBI, the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law on account of them being non speaking,” he asserted.

Allowing the CBI's petitions, Justice Tiwari remanded the matter to the sanctioning authority for fresh consideration, directing it to evaluate all evidence produced by the CBI and decide on the prosecution request within a month.