The requirement of prosecution sanction under criminal law is both a safeguard against frivolous prosecution and a tool of executive delay. Analyse with reference to relevant provisions and recent judicial developments.

Q. The requirement of prosecution sanction under criminal law is both a safeguard against frivolous prosecution and a tool of executive delay. Analyse with reference to relevant provisions and recent judicial developments. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Prosecution sanction is a pre-cognisance executive filter: for speech and State-related offences, no court may take cognisance without prior government approval. Its design intent is protective, but its discretionary and open-ended exercise has made it equally a mechanism of delay — the two faces must be assessed separately.

As a safeguard against frivolous prosecution - Section 217, BNSS 2023 (replacing Section 196, CrPC 1973 [2]) bars cognisance of offences such as promoting enmity between groups (Section 196, BNS) and offences against the State without prior sanction of the Central or State Government [1]. - Section 218, BNSS extends the shield to judges, public servants and armed forces personnel acting in discharge of official duty [1]. - It screens out speech-related complaints filed to harass, protecting Article 19(1)(a) expression from prosecution at the pre-trial stage itself; sanction may follow a preliminary police inquiry [1].

As a tool of executive delay - Sanction is a discretionary political decision, so silence works as an informal veto: in the Ali Khan Mahmudabad case, Haryana neither granted nor refused sanction after the chargesheet was filed in August 2025, leaving the trial court unable to take cognisance for months [3]. - Such "prosecutorial limbo" — accused neither tried nor discharged — erodes the Article 21 right to a speedy trial, and its chilling effect on academic and public commentary persists throughout.

Recent judicial and legislative developments - In January 2026 a Bench headed by CJI Surya Kant urged Haryana to show "one-time magnanimity"; the State refused sanction on 3 March 2026, and the Court recorded this on 16 March, closing the case pre-cognisance [4]. - The BNSS answers the delay problem structurally: a sanction request under Section 218 must be decided within 120 days, failing which it is deemed granted [1].

Sanction thus protects liberty only when exercised promptly and reasoned; indefinite silence converts a shield into punishment by process. Extending a statutory outer limit with recorded reasons to Section 217 as well, and judicial review of unexplained inaction, would align the provision with its protective purpose and with Article 21's guarantee of fair, speedy procedure.

(~330 words)

Sources: 1. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023) — India Code — Sections 217 and 218: sanction for offences against the State and for public servants; 120-day deemed-sanction proviso 2. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — PRS Legislative Research — BNSS replaces the CrPC, 1973 3. “SC asks if Haryana can grant relief to academic for posts”, The Hindu, 7 January 2026 — sanction pending since August 2025; trial court unable to take cognisance 4. “SC records Haryana’s refusal to prosecute Prof. Mahmudabad over Operation Sindoor post” — Supreme Court Observer — CJI Surya Kant’s “one-time magnanimity” nudge; refusal dated 3 March 2026 recorded on 16 March 2026