Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 · Chapter XIV: Conditions Requisite for Initiation of Proceedings
Section 197: Prosecution of Judges and public servants
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. It still applies to offences and proceedings from before that date.
In plain words
No court can take cognizance of an offence allegedly committed by a current or former Judge, Magistrate or public servant removable only with government sanction, while acting or purporting to act in their official duty, without the previous sanction of the Central Government (for Union employees) or the State Government (for State employees), except as the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 provides.
- No sanction is needed for sexual offences, trafficking, and failures to record complaints or treat victims listed in the Explanation.
- Members of the Armed Forces of the Union need Central Government sanction for acts in official duty, and the State Government can extend this protection, with its own sanction, to forces maintaining public order.
- During President's Rule in a State, the Central Government gives sanction instead of the State.
- The government can decide who conducts the prosecution and in which court.
A simplified explanation, prepared with AI assistance from the official text below and checked automatically against it for numbers and cross-references. The official text is the law and prevails over this summary. Not legal advice.
Official text
(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction [save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (1 of 2014)]—
(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;
(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of the State Government: [Provided that where the alleged offence was committed by a person referred to in clause (b) during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in a State, clause (b) will apply as if for the expression —State Government‖ occurring therein, the expression —Central Government‖ were substituted.] [Explanation.—For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that no sanction shall be required in case of a public servant accused of any offence alleged to have been committed under section 166A, section 166B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 370, section 375, [section 376A, section 376AB, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB] or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).]
(2) No Court shall take cognizance of any offence alleged to have been committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Union while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3) The State Government may, by notification, direct that the provisions of sub-section (2) shall apply to such class or category of the members of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order as may be specified therein, wherever they may be serving, and thereupon the provisions of that sub-section will apply as if for the expression "Central Government" occurring therein, the expression "State Government" were substituted. [(3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (3), no court shall take cognizance of any offence, alleged to have been committed by any member of the Forces charged with the maintenance of public order in a State while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force therein, except with the previous sanction of the Central Government.
(3B) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Code or any other law, it is hereby declared that any sanction accorded by the State Government or any cognizance taken by a court upon such sanction, during the period commencing on the 20th day of August, 1991 and ending with the date immediately preceding the date on which the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1991 (43 of 1991), receives the assent of the President, with respect to an offence alleged to have been committed during the period while a Proclamation issued under clause (1) of article 356 of the Constitution was in force in the State, shall be invalid and it shall be competent for the Central Government in such matter to accord sanction and for the court to take cognizance thereon.]
(4) The Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, may determine the person by whom, the manner in which, and the offence or offences for which, the prosecution of such Judge, Magistrate or public servant is to be conducted, and may specify the Court before which the trial is to be held.
Corresponding sections were matched by comparing the wording of both official texts, and for the IPC and BNS, also against a published correspondence table. Wording, punishments and structure often changed, so read both sections before relying on the match.
Source: India Code (Legislative Department), the text of the Act as it stood before its repeal. Words in square brackets [ ] were inserted or substituted by later amending Acts, and *** marks words omitted by an amendment. The amendment footnotes are not reproduced here. Official text on India Code.
Supreme Court judgments citing the section 197
-
Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors.
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court holding that prima facie cognizable offences are made out for investigation against the appellant-officers of the CBI, and directing the Delhi…
-
State by Deputy Superintendent of Police v. B.T. Ramesh & Anr.
Issue arose whether the High Court was justified in quashing the criminal proceedings, on the grounds of the chargesheet having been filed more than four years after the date of the alleged incident and lack of…
-
Central Bureau of Investigation v. Ramesh Chander Diwan
Whether the High Court was right in holding that sanction under Section 197, Cr.PC not having been obtained, the respondent should be discharged for the offences registered under Sections 120B and 420 of the IPC against…
-
Suneeti Toteja v. State of U.P. & Another
Whether, in light of the facts and circumstances of this case and the position of law apropos to the sanction for prosecution, the High Court ought to have exercised its powers u/s.482 of the CrPC to quash the…
-
Om Prakash Ambadkar v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Magistrate passed an order under Section 156(3), Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 directing registration of FIR against the appellant-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 500, 504 & 506,…
-
Gurmeet Kaur v. Devender Gupta & Another
Issue arose whether the appellant while discharging her duty as a public servant on the relevant date, there was any excess in the discharge of the said duty which did not require the first respondent to take a prior…
-
Directorate of Enforcement v. Bibhu Prasad Acharya, etc.
The appellant filed complaints against the respondents and others u/s.44(1)(b) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002. The Special Court took cognizance of the complaints and issued summons to the respondents…
-
Fuleshwar Gope v. Union of India & Ors.
Issue arose as to whether the validity of the Sanction Order can be challenged at any stage; whether violation of s.45(2) of the UAPA r/w rr.3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, if any, vitiates the proceedings, whether violation…
-
Baccarose Perfumes and Beauty Products Pvt. Ltd v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision Application against the rejection of the discharge application moved by the appellant-Company.
-
M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited and Another v. Central Bureau of Investigation
The present appeals challenge the Order on Charge dated 24.12.2021 and Order framing Charges dated 03.03.2022 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Central Bureau of Investigation registered…
-
Basamsetti Rama Devi v. The State of A.P. & Ors.
In cases relating to quashing of criminal complaint against the accused police officers-respondents in matters of custodial death, whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the committal order and…
-
Tusharbhai Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Ors.
Accused-petitioner was granted absolute interim protection of anticipatory bail by Supreme Court, until modified or altered upon final disposal of the present SLP which was pending consideration before this Court.…
-
The State of Punjab v. Partap Singh Verka
Correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court which had summoned respondent u/s 319 CrPC to face the trial for the offences u/s. 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption…
-
Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Whether sanction u/s. 197 Cr.P.C. is required to prosecute respondent No. 2 who faces accusation amongst others of creating fake documents by misusing his official position as a Village Accountant, thus a public…
-
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Interpretation of s.17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 incorporated by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 26 of 2018 and its applicability to the facts of the present case.
-
Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Revision filed by the appellant against the order of the Special Judge allowing the application u/s. 319 CrPC summoning the appellant along with three other…
- Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh
-
A. Sreenivasa Reddy v. Rakesh Sharma and Anr.
Whether the appellant, an Assistant General Manager of a Nationalised Bank is removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government so as to make s.197, CrPC applicable; and if he can be proceeded…
- A. Srinivasulu v. The State Rep. by the Inspector of
- Amod Kumar Kanth v. Association of Victim of
- S. Athilakshmi v. The State Rep. by the Drugs
- Anant Thanur Karmuse v. The State of
- T.P. Gopalakrishnan v. State of Kerala
- Vijay Rajmohan v. State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Cbi, Acb, Chennai, Tamil Nadu
- Zakia Ahsan Jafri v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
- Shantaben Bhurabhai Bhuriya v. Anand Athabhai Chaudhari & Ors.
- The State of Kerala v. K. Ajith & Ors.
- Indra Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
- Noorulla Khan v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
- Vinod Dua v. Union of India & Ors.
- Jayant Etc. v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
- M/S. Fertico Marketing and Investment Pvt. Ltd and Ors. Etc. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another Etc.
- D. Devaraja v. Owais Sabeer Hussain
- Nisha Priya Bhatia v. Union of India & Anr.
- Station House Officer, Cbi/Acb/Bangalore v. B.A. Srinivasan and Anr.
- Karnataka State Pollution Control v. B. Heera Naik & Ors. Etc.
- S. K. Miglani v. State NCT of Delhi
- K. K. Mishra v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
- Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora & Ors.
- Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
- Asoke Kumar Chaudhuri and Others v. Kunal Saha and Another
- L. Narayana Swamy v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
- Extra Judicial Execution Victim Families Association (Eevfam) & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
- Surinderjit Singh Mand & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Anr.
- Punjab State Warehousing Corp. v. Bhushan Chander & Anr.
- Amal Kumar J Ha v. State of Chhatisgarh & Anr.
- Devinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab Through CBI
- Prof. N. K. Ganguly v. CBI New Delhi
- International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (Arci) &Ors. v. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P) Ltd.&Anr.
- Dr. (Smt.) Manorama Tiwari and Others v. Surendra Nath Rai
- State of Rajasthan v. Jainudeen Shekhandanr.
- Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka
- Rajdeep Sardesai v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors.
- D. T. Virupakshappa v. C. Subash
- Inspector of Police and Another v. Batienapatla Ven Kata Ratnam and Another
- V.C. Chinnappa Goudar v. Karnataka State Pollution Control Board & Anr.
- State of Punjab v. Labh Singh
- Rajib Ranjan & Ors. v. R. Vijaykumar
- Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. v. The State of Gujarat
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Centeral Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- State of Bihar & Ors. v. Rajmangal Ram
- Fakhruzamma v. State of Jharkhand & Anr.
- Urmila Devi v. Yudhvir Singh
- Anil Kumar & Ors. v. M. K. Aiyappa & Anr.
- Ajoy Acharya v. State Bureau of Inv. Against Eco. Offence
- C.K. Jaffer Sharief v. State (Through Cbi)
- Om Prakash & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand Through the Secretary, Department of Home, Ranchl-I & Anr.
- General Officer Commanding v. CBI and Anr
- Om Kr. Dhankar v. State of Haryana & Anr.
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh and Another
- Prithipal Singh Etc v. State of Punjab & Anr. Etc.
- Chitiaranjan Das v. State of Orissa
- Satyavir Singh Rathi v. State Thr. C.B.I
- Centre for Pil & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr.
- State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nishant Sareen
- Shivjee Singh v. Nagendra Tiwary and Ors.
- State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sheetla Sahai & Ors.
- State of Punjab & Anr. v. Mohammed Iqbal Bhatti
- Jamiruddin Ansari v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.
- State of U.P. v. Paras Nath Singh
- Choudhury Parveen Sultana v. State of West Bengal and Anr.
- Anjan1 Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr.
- Paul George v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi
- M. Balakrishna Reddy v. Director, Cbi, New Delhi
- P.K. Choudhury v. Commander, 48 Brtf (Gref)
- Raghunath Anant Govilkar v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.
- M.C.Mehta v. Union of India and Ors.
- State of Karnataka v. Ameer Jan
- State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bachha Lal & Anr.
- Paul Varghese v. State of Kerala and Anr.
- Shri Harendra Nath Borah v. State of Assam
- Parkash Singh Badal and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.
- Lalu Prasad@ Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar Through CBI (Ahd) Patna
- Mohan Raj v. Dimbeswari Saikia & Anr
- Jayasingh v. K.K. Velayutham and Anr.
- Sankaran Moitra v. Sadhna Das and Anr.
- Rakesh Kumar Mishra v. The State of Bihar and Ors.
- Romesh Lal Jain v. Naginder Singh Rana and Ors.
- N.K. Sharma v. Abhimanyu
- Center for Public Interest Litigation and Anr . v. Union of India and Anr.