Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Section 45: Cognizance of offences
[(1)] No court shall take cognizance of any offence—
(i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorised by the Central Government in this behalf;
(ii) under Chapter IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and [if] such offence is committed against the Government of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government.
[(2) Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) shall be given within such time as may be prescribed only after considering the report of such authority appointed by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government which shall make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation, within such time as may be prescribed, to the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government.]
Source: India Code (indiacode.gov.in), the consolidated text published by the Legislative Department, Government of India. Text as updated on India Code on 15 October 2026. 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 45
- State NCT of Delhi v. Anamul Ansari & Ors
-
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…
-
State of NCT of Delhi v. Raj Kumar @ Lovepreet @Lovely
The High Court granted default bail to the respondent u/s. 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Whether the High Court committed an error in allowing the petition and granting default bail to the respondent.
- Acharya v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 5 SCC 453 : 2001
- Zeeshan Qamar v. State of NCT Delhi
- Mohammad Irfan v. State of Karnataka
- The State of Maharashtra v. Surendra Pundlik Gadling & Ors.
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Centeral Bureau of Investigation & Anr.