T A RAJENDRAN Vs. GOVERNOR OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is yet another litigative adventure of the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The order assailed is that of the Governor of Kerala; and the person attacked is the Chief Minister. The State cabinet took a decision on 28-11-1985, sanctioning the issue of a licence for the establishment of a distillery for the manufacture of spirits. About two months later on 18-2-1986 the Chief Minister Hew from Cochin to Calicut and back in a helicopter of the Indian Navy. These acts, according to the petitioner, constituted offences punishable under S.5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The Chief Minister of a State cannot, however, be prosecuted for such offences, without the sanction of the Appointing Authority, which in the present case, is the Governor of Kerala. The petitioner made the necessary application on 25-2-1986. That was supplemented by other petitions submitted on 17-3-1986 and 12-4-1986. The Governor of Kerala declined sanction for prosecution by his communication dated 24-4-1986. The order is a brief one and it reads:

(2.) The principles relating to the grant of sanction, when in an attempted prosecution of such an important functionary like the Chief Minister of a State is involved, have now been laid down by the decisions of the Supreme Court.

(3.) The order of the Governor is amenable to judicial scrutiny. When there is a request to sanction a prosecution of the Chief Minister, the Governor would, as a matter of propriety, necessarily act in his own discretion and not on the advice of the Council of Ministers. The Governor has to apply his mind to the facts of the case, the evidence collected, and other incidental facts, before according sanction. Sanction is a solemn and sacro-senct act and not an idle formality. (See R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antula v. AIR 1984 SC 684 and State of Maharashtra v. Ramdas Shrinivasa Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249 ,