On April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court of India came up with a significant ruling in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan. It clarified the issue of legal status of the government employees on deputation and the need to obtain sanction to prosecute them against Section IPC. It was the case where the service law, the criminal process, as well as the constitutional safeguarding of the public personnel intersected. The bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan once more said that deputationist officers of the state are not deprived of legal protection under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
History and facts
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana made a ruling to which the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) raised an appeal. The respondent Ramesh, Chander Diwan was the former Executive Engineer of Public Health Department of the Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh. In 2014, FIR was registered against Diwan alleging that he had collaborated with a private media house to alter the terms of a tender that had added 40 times to the cost borne by the government in excess of 13.66 crores. These were offences against the Section 120B, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the Section 13(2) and 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
In 2016, when Diwan had quit his job, a chargesheet had been filed by CBI. He asked to be let go, saying that the prosecution didn’t have the required sanction under Section 197 of the CrPC. The trial court turned down this request, but the High Court partly granted his revision plea. It let the corruption accusations go forward but dropped the IPC offenses since there was no sentence.
For More Updates & Regular Notes Join Our Whats App Group (https://chat.whatsapp.com/DkucckgAEJbCtXwXr2yIt0) and Telegram Group ( https://t.me/legalmaestroeducators ) contact@legalmaestros.com.
Questions of Law Before the Supreme Court
The main issue the Supreme Court had to answer was whether a public servant who is working for a municipal corporation still had the procedural protection of Section 197 of the CrPC for actions taken while doing their official responsibilities.
According to Section 197 of the CrPC, no court may look into crimes committed by public personnel while they are doing their jobs without first getting permission from the right administration. The Court had to decide whether this protection extended to Diwan, who was first nominated by the Punjab Government and sent to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.
Deputation and Public Servants: What the Courts Say
The Court looked at what “deputation” means in the context of service law. The Court used cases like State of Punjab v. Inder Singh and Umapati Choudhary v. State of Bihar to illustrate that deputation is sending a government worker to work in a different department for a short time, generally without ending their affiliation with the parent organization.
The Court said that in Diwan’s instance, the Governor of Punjab gave him the instructions to be on duty, and the Punjab Government still had disciplinary control over his employment. The Municipal Corporation of Chandigarh never hired him, and the Punjab Government never fired him. In this way, he was still a public servant as defined by Section 21 of the IPC.
When Section 197 CrPC applies
The Court used the case of Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari to illustrate why Section 197 CrPC exists. It is meant to stop people from suing public workers for things they did while doing their jobs that are not serious or that are meant to annoy them. This procedural protection is based on the public good, not only on personal privilege.
The Court said that while the Punjab Government still had the power to discipline Diwan and could only remove him, the obligation to get permission before prosecuting him was still in effect. His appointment as a deputy did not modify his basic legal position as a public worker under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
The importance of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act
The High Court said that Diwan could not be freed from the charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act because the change to Section 19 that required permission to prosecute even retired officials could not be applied to cases that had already happened. The Supreme Court agreed with this decision. It said that Diwan could not use the new provision to shield himself since the crime and the charges happened before the 2018 change to the Prevention of Corruption Act.
More information about BNSS 2023 and Deemed Sanction
The Additional Solicitor General who appeared on behalf of the CBI prayed to the Court to allow them to approach the CBC with a request to grant a considered sanction under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) which came into force recently, and provided such a mechanism. This motion was however denied by the Court who said that Section 531 of the BNSS holds that all pending cases should be carried through to completion under the CrPC. So, the CrPC was still the legislation that applied at the time of the prosecution.
Final Decision and Effect
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s judgment to let Diwan go free of IPC charges since there was no penalty. It also said that the case may go on under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It made it clear that the delegation did not get rid of the legal need for permission under Section 197. The Court also said that the CBI could still get the right permission under the CrPC if it wanted to go forward with the prosecution.
This decision will have a big effect on instances involving retired officials and deputationists. It makes sure that temporary postings to other agencies don’t get around the legal protections for public personnel. It further underlines that deputation does not change the basic connection between the service and the public worker or weaken the constitutional and legal guarantees that apply to them.
The ruling in Ramesh Chander Diwan v. Central Bureau of Investigation is a careful restatement of long-held legal ideas on how to prosecute public officers. Not only have the Supreme Court clarified the rules of deputation and disciplinary control, but the court has also emphasized on the need to accompany the rules with procedural measures to ensure that government officials do not utilize a criminal justice to the detriment of other individuals. In a world where it is not only vital but also sensitive to fight graft, such a judicial equilibrium ensures that no person is treated differently, is introduced to accountability, and obeys the law.
