In Brief
A senior government official challenged his prosecution for acquiring disproportionate assets. He argued that the sanction granted after 22 months was invalid because the appointing authority merely followed the Central Vigilance Commission's advice without independent thought. The Supreme Court held that consulting the CVC does not amount to acting under dictation if the final decision is independent. While the three-month sanction period (plus one month for legal consultation) is mandatory, breach does not automatically quash proceedings. Instead, aggrieved parties may seek judicial remedies including accountability measures against the sanctioning authority. The Court dismissed the appeal.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.