The India Supreme Court overturned Wednesday the order of the High Court of Karnataka which had quashed the complaint and chargesheet against an accused public servant. The court ruled that Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not provide blanket immunity to every act or omission of a public servant during their service.

The two-judge bench of the apex court, consisting of Justice Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, rendered a verdict in Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka and another, reaffirming that the immunity granted to the public servants protects them solely for the acts or omissions which are committed by them during the course of their duty. 

In 2020, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the complaint of Shadakshri, the aggrieved, and chargesheet, which had been filed against the public servants. The public servants were accused of involvement in the creation of fraudulent property documents in the name of deceased individuals. Initially, in 2018, the High Court refrained from intervening, citing that the First Information Report (FIR) which is a preliminary investigative report, was at a premature stage. However, in 2020, the officials sought the court’s intervention to quash the charges against them. The court, considering the accused’s status as a public servant and the alleged offenses occurring during the discharge of official duties, ruled in favor of the respondent. Shadakshri, aggrieved by it, filed an appeal in the apex court.

While setting aside the order, the apex court said the high court “had erred in quashing the complaint as well as the charge sheet in its entirety.”

The court stated that the rationale of the section 197 of the CrPC is meant to protect a public servant discharging public duties without any “undue harassment.” Considering the precedent set in 2004, in the State of Orissa v. Ganesh Chandra Jew, the court emphasized the due procedure and circumstances in which the protection can be invoked. It reiterated the accused official needs to show evidence demonstrating that the accusations against them pertain to “the official duties of the public servant concerned.”