Kerala High Court
Anirudh P vs State Of Kerala on 10 September, 2025
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
-1-
2025:KER:67092
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
TH
WEDNESDAY, THE 10 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 19TH BHADRA, 1947
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
CRIME NO.2/2015 OF VACB, ERNAKULAM,
PETITIONER:
ANIRUDH P
AGED 28 YEARS
S/O. SASIDHARAN .P, PATHIRIKKADE (H), CHEMMANIYODE (P.O.), MALAPPURAM, PIN
- 679326
BY ADV SHRI.S.ABHILASH VISHNU
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 THE DIRECTOR OF VIGILANCE & ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU
VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
3 THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, ERNAKULAM UNIT,
KATHRIKADAVU, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682017
4 SREE SANKARACHARYA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY
KALADY, , REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, PIN - 683574
5 THE VICE CHANCELLOR
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT SREE SANKARACHARYA
UNIVERSITY, KALADY, PIN - 683574
6 THE REGISTRAR
SREE SANKARACHARYA SANSKRIT UNIVERSITY, KALADY, PIN - 683574
7 THE SYNDICATE
SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF SANSKRIT , KALADY, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN, PIN - 684574
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
-2-
2025:KER:67092
8 VENUGOPALAN NAIR, AGED 60,
S/O. CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, "CHIDHAMBARAM", GANDHI SUARE,
NEAR POORNATHRAYEESA TEMPLE,
POONITHURA, ERNAKULAM-682038
BY ADVS.
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
SRI.RAJESH A., SPL. G.P. (VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU)
SHRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN, SC, SREE SANKARACHARYA UNIVERSITY OF
SANSKRIT, KALADY
SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR
SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN
SMT.KAVYA SREEJITH
THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.09.2025, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
-3-
2025:KER:67092
"C R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J
======================
W.P.(Crl) No. 1282 of 2023
========================
Dated 10th day of September 2025
JUDGMENT
This Writ Petition (Criminal) has been filed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who is a student of
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady (hereinafter
referred to as 'the University'). The prayers sought in this petition are
as follows
1. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
calling for the records leading upto to the issuance of
Ext.P2 and set-aside the same alongwith Ext.P2 denial
of sanction;
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
2. issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ,
and set-aside Ext.P3 notice issued by the court of the
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance),
Muvattupuzha;
3. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate
writ, order or direction to the sanctioning authority of
the 4th respondent university to consider Ext.P1 afresh
and pass orders upon it after due enquiry as per law
within a time frame fixed by this Hon'ble court;
4. issue such other writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble
Court deems fit to be granted in the circumstances of the
case including costs.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, the learned
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
Special Public Prosecutor representing the VACB, as well as the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent
University.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner read out the contents
of Ext.P2 order dated 10.01.2018, whereby sanction was refused, and
contended that the sanctioning authority failed to apply its mind to
the case of the prosecution after adverting the prosecution records.
Consequently there is no reference in the sanction refusal order as to
the case of the prosecution or the records thereof. Instead, the
refusal of sanction was in consideration of the services rendered by
Dr.Venugopalan Nair C (the 8th accused) as the Head of the
Department of Dance at the University. That apart on assessing his
contributions to the University sanction was declined. Accordingly,
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
the learned counsel for the writ petitioner prayed for interference in
the impugned order and sought a direction to the University to
decide the question of grant of sanction in accordance with the law.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent placed
decision of the Apex Court reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622
Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat with
reference to paragraphs 18 and 19 to substantiate the point that the
observations in Paragraphs 18 and 19 the Apex Court would govern
the grant or refusal of sanction. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are extracted as
under:-
"18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend
upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority
and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and
evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority.
Consideration implies application of mind. The order of
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning
authority had considered the evidence and other material
placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic
evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to
show that all relevant facts were considered by the
sanctioning authority.
19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the
applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the
facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected
during investigation, it necessarily follows that the
sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent
mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether
prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the
sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from
any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it
to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to
grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the
sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have
not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is
shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its
independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under
an obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the
sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away
and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the
prosecution."
5. The learned Special Public Prosecutor also placed decision of
the Apex Court reported in 2013 KHC 4983, CBI v. Ashok
Kumar Aggarwal with reference to Paragraph 18 where the Apex
Court held that the CBI had not sent the complete record to the
sanctioning authority. The order dated 11.07.2007 passed by the
Special Judge made it evident that the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the CBI had conceded before the Court that only SP's report
alongwith list of evidence (oral) and list of evidence (documentary)
were sent to the sanctioning authority for the purpose of according
sanction. The statement of witnesses and other relevant documents
were not sent to the sanctioning authority as per the own case of CBI.
The observation in the sanction order dated 26.11.2002 that "the case
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
diaries and documents collected by the investigating officers during the
course of investigation, statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC
and under Section 164 of CrPC were considered by the sanctioning
authority" is factually incorrect. The aforesaid facts make it clear that
the sanctioning authority had not considered the entire material
available with the investigating agency. Another decision of the Apex
Court reported in 2019 KHC 7175, Vinod Kumar Garg v.
State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi)
with reference to paragraph 18 where the Apex Court held that the
appellant has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Mohd. Iqbal
Ahmed v. State of A.P., (1979) 4 SCC 172 and State of
Karnataka v. Ameerjan, (2007) 11 SCC 273, to challenge the
sanction order. In Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed (supra) it was observed that
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
a valid sanction is the one that is granted by the Sanctioning Authority
after being satisfied that a case for sanction is made out constituting the
offence. It is important to be mindful of the observations made by the
Court as reproduced below:
"3. [...] what the Court has to see is whether or not
the Sanctioning Authority at the time of giving
sanction was aware of the facts constituting the
offence and applied its mind for the same...
"Similarly, in Ameerjan (supra), it was observed:
"10. [...] Ordinarily, before passing an order of
sanction, the entire records containing the materials
collected against the accused should be placed before
the sanctioning authority. In the event, the order of
sanction does not indicate application of mind as (sic
to) the materials placed before the said authority
before the order of sanction was passed, the same
may be produced before the court to show materials
had in fact been produced."
Therefore, what the law requires is the application of
mind by the Sanctioning Authority on the material
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
placed before it to satisfy itself of prima facie case
that would constitute the offence. On the said aspect,
the later decision of this Court in State of
Maharashtra v. Mahesh G. Jain, (2013) 8
SCC 119, has referred to several decisions to
expound on the following principles of law governing
the validity of sanction:
"14.1. It is incumbent on the prosecution to
prove that the valid sanction has been granted
by the sanctioning authority after being
satisfied that a case for sanction has been
made out.
14:2. The sanction order may expressly show
that the sanctioning authority has perused the
material placed before it and, after
consideration of the circumstances, has granted
sanction for prosecution.
14.3. The prosecution may prove by adducing
the evidence that the material was placed
before the sanctioning authority and its
satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the
material placed before it.
14.4. Grant of sanction is only an
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
administrative function and the sanctioning
authority is required to prima facie reach the
satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute
the offence.
14.5. The adequacy of material placed before
the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into
by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the
sanction order.
14.6. If the sanctioning authority has perused
all the materials placed before it and some of
them have not been proved that would not
vitiate the order of sanction.
14.7. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as
it is intended to provide a safeguard to a
public servant against frivolous and vexatious
litigants, but simultaneously an order of
sanction should not be construed in a pedantic
manner and there should not be a
hypertechnical approach to test its validity."
The contention of the appellant, therefore, fails
and is rejected.
6. Another decision of this Court reported in 2024 KHC 673
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
Kadakampally Manoj v. State of Kerala also has been placed to
buttress the point that order refusing or rejecting sanction should be
a speaking order on applying mind of the authority concerned by
scrutinizing the entire prosecution records in detail.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the 8th accused submitted
that he has placed documents in the form of degree certificates [Ext.
R8(a) to (h)], contending that all of them are genuine certificates
obtained by the 8th accused to negate the prosecution allegations.
At the same time the learned counsel for the 8th accused conceded
that he would not stand in the way of ordering reconsideration of the
sanction order.
8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel as indicated, I have perused Ext. P2, the sanction order dated
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
10.01.2018, whereby the Syndicate of the University denied the
sanction sought by the prosecution in a case where the 8th
respondent is alleged to have committed offences punishable under
Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, as well as under Sections 420, 468, 471, and
474 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. On perusal of the decisions referred hereinabove it is
emphatically clear that the validity of the sanction would, therefore,
depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority
and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have
been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies
application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that
the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic
evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that
all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. Since
the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the
sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and
evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the
sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the
generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be
sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not
be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be
acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the
discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the
sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the
sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for
any reason whatsoever or was under an obligation or compulsion or
constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason
that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away
and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the
prosecution. At the same time the prosecution may prove by
adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the
sanctioning authority and its satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal
of the material placed before it. Grant of sanction is only an
administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to
prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute
the offence. The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in
appeal over the sanction order. If the sanctioning authority has
perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not
been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. The order
of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to
a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but
simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a
pedantic manner and there should not be a hypertechnical approach
to test its validity.
10. In Ext. P2, the sanction order, there is no prima facie
application of mind, and there is no reference to the prosecution
materials. Ext. P2 merely depicts an appraisal of the contributions
made by the 8th accused to the University, so that the accused of
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
such a stature could not be prosecuted are the reasons for denying
sanction, without adhering to the procedure established by law. In
view of the above, Ext. P2 is liable to be set aside, to enable the
Syndicate of the University to reconsider the question of sanction
afresh, in accordance with law.
11. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. Ext.P2 order
stands set aside with direction to the syndicate of the University to
consider the question of sanction afresh strictly in accordance with
the settled law discussed in detail hereinabove, by applying mind and
after reading the prosecution records in detail. The above exercise
shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt
of copy of this judgment.
In this regard the Registry is directed to forward a copy of this
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
judgment to the Vice Chancellor and Registrar of the Sree
Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady within a period of
seven days.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN
JUDGE
RMV
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
APPENDIX OF WP(CRL.) 1282/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION APPROVAL FORM WITH
A COVERING LETTER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED
19.11.2016 WITH
S.NO.E21(VC2/15/EKM/SSUNI)1947/2015
Exhibit-P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY ISSUED BY THE
UNIVERSITY DATED 10.01.2018 WITH S.NO.
LGLS/8837/SSUS/2015
Exhibit-P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 24.09.2022 WITH
S.NO. VC2/2015/EKM ISSUED BY THE COURT OF THE
ENQUIRY COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(VIGILANCE), MUVATTUPUZHA
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R8(a) True copy of the SSLC book of the 8th
Respondent
Exhibit R8(b) True copy of the pre-degree mark-list dated
06.08.1977
Exhibit R8(c) True copy of the certificate of registration
with no. 13212/A80 dated 04.01.1982
Exhibit R8(d) True copy of the certificate of diploma
issued to the 8th Respondent by the
Department of Education, Government of Kerala
Exhibit Rd(e) True copy of the post diploma certificate
dated 22.09.1990 issued to the 8th Respondent
by the Department of Education, Government of
Kerala
Exhibit R8(f) True copy of the rank certificate in the MA
Degree Examination, issued to the 8th
Respondent by the Mahatma Gandhi University
dated 07.06.2003
Exhibit R8(g) True copy of the mark-list in MA examination
issued to the 8th Respondent by the Mahatma
Gandhi University dated 27.01.2003
Exhibit R8(h) True copy of the certificate of MA degree
issued to the 8th Respondent by the Mahatma
Gandhi University dated 18.03.2004
WP(CRL.) NO. 1282 OF 2023
2025:KER:67092
Exhibit R8(i) True copy of the response dated 02.01.2016
furnished by the 8th Respondent to the memo
issued by the Respondent University
