K. Veeraswami v. Union of India & Others
Bench: Constitution Bench — 5 Judges (S. Ranganathan, M.H. Kania, L.M. Sharma, P.B. Sawant & S.C. Agrawal JJ)
Parties
Facts of the Case
K. Veeraswami was a former Chief Justice of the Madras High Court. He was prosecuted for possessing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The question arose: does a High Court or Supreme Court judge require sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC (which requires prior sanction to prosecute public servants for acts done in the discharge of official duties) before criminal proceedings can be initiated against them? And if so, who grants the sanction — the President or the Chief Justice of India? The case raised fundamental questions about judicial accountability and constitutional immunity.
Legal Issues Before the Court
- 1Does a High Court judge (or former judge) require sanction under Section 197 CrPC for prosecution for corruption-related offences?
- 2If sanction is required, who has the authority to grant sanction for prosecution of a judge — the executive (President) or the Chief Justice of India?
- 3Does the constitutional protection of judges under Articles 124 and 217 create a bar to criminal prosecution without special sanction?
The Judgment
The Constitution Bench held by a majority that judges of the High Court and Supreme Court are 'public servants' for the purposes of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and can be prosecuted for corruption. However, since judges enjoy constitutional protection and their removal process is specified in Article 124(4)/217(1) — requiring an address by Parliament — the sanction for prosecution of a sitting judge must be given by the Chief Justice of India (not the executive/President). For a former judge, the sanction requirement under Section 197 CrPC does not apply since they are no longer 'public servants' in the relevant sense. The Court affirmed that no person — including judges — is above the law.
Key Principles Laid Down
JUDGES ARE PUBLIC SERVANTS — PC ACT APPLIES: High Court and Supreme Court judges are 'public servants' within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act. They can be prosecuted for corruption — judicial office does not confer immunity from criminal law.
SANCTION FOR SITTING JUDGES — CJI, NOT EXECUTIVE: A sitting judge of a High Court or Supreme Court requires sanction for prosecution, but that sanction must be obtained from the Chief Justice of India — not from the executive (President or Government). This prevents executive interference with the judiciary through criminal prosecution.
FORMER JUDGES — NO SECTION 197 PROTECTION: A former judge (who has retired or resigned) is not a 'public servant discharging official duties' — Section 197 CrPC sanction requirements do not apply to former judges. They can be prosecuted without special sanction.
NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW — JUDICIAL ACCOUNTABILITY: Veeraswami (1991) is the foundational case establishing that judges are not above the law and are accountable for corruption. The CJI-sanction mechanism balances judicial independence with judicial accountability.
Impact on Indian Law
K. Veeraswami (1991) is the leading case on the intersection of judicial immunity, judicial accountability, and corruption law in India. It established the CJI-sanction mechanism for prosecuting sitting judges — a significant constitutional innovation. The case has been cited extensively in subsequent judicial accountability debates and in the context of the broader discussion on judicial independence versus judicial accountability in India.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a sitting judge be prosecuted for corruption in India, and who gives the sanction?
Yes. K. Veeraswami v. Union of India (1991) held that judges are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act and can be prosecuted for corruption. However, for a sitting judge, the sanction for prosecution must be given by the Chief Justice of India — not by the executive — to preserve judicial independence. Former judges can be prosecuted without special sanction under Section 197 CrPC, since they are no longer public servants in the relevant sense.