The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered an FIR in 2021, but prosecution of two IAS officers was delayed because sanction had not been granted. The process involves the Tamil Nadu Government, Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and finally the PMO.

Why in the News?

  • The Central Government informed the Madras High Court that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) is the competent authority to grant statutory sanction for prosecuting Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers in criminal cases.
  • The clarification came during a case concerning delays in granting sanction to prosecute two IAS officers in a ₹98.25-crore corporation tender irregularities case.

What is the Issue?

  • The case concerns alleged irregularities in contracts awarded by the Greater Chennai and Coimbatore Municipal Corporations during 2014–2018.
  • The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) registered a First Information Report (FIR) in 2021.
  • The investigation was subsequently completed.
  • However, prosecution of the two IAS officers was delayed because the required sanction for prosecution had not been granted.

Who Processes the Sanction?

  • According to the Central Government’s submission, the sanction process moves through the following authorities:
    • Tamil Nadu Government
    • ↓
    • Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)
    • ↓
    • Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) — remarks
    • ↓
    • Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) — sanction
  • The DoPT stated that it received thousands of pages of documents from the State Government.
  • These documents had to be examined before being sent to the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC).
  • After receiving the CVC’s remarks, the file is forwarded to the PMO for a decision.

What is Sanction for Prosecution?

  • Sanction for prosecution is the legally required approval before certain public servants can be prosecuted for offences allegedly committed in the course of their official duties.
  • Its purpose includes:
    • Protecting public servants from frivolous or malicious prosecution.
    • Ensuring that prosecution decisions are based on proper examination of the allegations.
  • At the same time, undue delay in granting sanction can affect the effective prosecution of corruption cases.

Present Case

  • The petition was filed by Arappor Iyakkam, an anti-corruption organisation.
  • The petition concerns IAS officers K.S. Kandasamy and K. Vijaya Karthikeyan.
  • The broader case primarily concerns former Tamil Nadu Minister S.P. Velumani.
  • 12 February 2024: Then Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Speaker M. Appavu granted sanction to prosecute Mr. Velumani.
  • The delay concerning the IAS officers led the organisation to approach the High Court.

Madras High Court’s Intervention

  • Justice N. Anand Venkatesh questioned:
    • Who is the competent authority to grant sanction for prosecuting IAS officers?
    • Why does the sanction process take such a long time?
  • The DoPT assured the court that the matter had been given top priority.
  • It stated that the process would be completed within two months.
  • The court directed the Joint Secretary to submit an affidavit explaining the complete sanction process from November 2025 until the PMO’s final decision.
  • The case was adjourned to 12 November 2026.

Key Concerns

  • Delay in prosecution: Long sanction procedures can delay corruption trials.
  • Administrative accountability: Excessive procedural delays may weaken accountability of public officials.
  • Document-heavy process: Large volumes of records can slow decision-making.
  • Balance of interests: The sanction mechanism must protect honest officials while ensuring that genuine corruption cases are not unnecessarily delayed.

Conclusion

The Central Government has informed the Madras High Court that the Prime Minister's of India (PMO) office competent authority to grant statutory sanction for prosecuting IAS officers in criminal cases. The issue arose in a case involving alleged irregularities in ₹98.25-crore corporation tenders in Tamil Nadu between 2014 and 2018. The Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption registered an FIR in 2021, but prosecution of two IAS officers was delayed because sanction had not been granted. The process involves the Tamil Nadu Government, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC), and finally the PMO. The sanction system aims to protect public servants from false or malicious cases, but long delays can affect corruption investigations and trials. The Madras High Court has sought details of the process and asked authorities to complete it within the stated timeline.