Parkash Singh Badal and Anr vs State of Punjab - Supreme Court Case
Parkash Singh Badal and Anr vs State of Punjab - Supreme Court Case Summary of Leading Case -
On 6th December, 2006, a two Judges Bench in Parkash Singh Badal and Anr vs State of Punjab and Ors [Civil Appeal No.5636 of 2006] held that “the principle of immunity protects all acts which the public servant has to perform in the exercise of the functions of the Government. The purpose for which they are performed protects these acts from criminal prosecution. However, there is an exception. Where a criminal act is performed under the colour of authority but which in reality is for the public servant’s own pleasure or benefit then such acts shall not be protected under the doctrine of State immunity.”
In other words, the Bench held that “where the act performed under the colour of office is for the benefit of the officer or for his own pleasure Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 will come in.” “Section 19(1) is time and offence related”, the Bench said.
The Bench further said that “each of the Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Act indicate that the public servant taking gratification (S.7), obtaining valuable thing without consideration (S.11), committing acts of criminal misconduct (S.13) are acts performed under the colour of authority but which in reality are for the public servant’s own pleasure or benefit. Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 apply to aforestated acts. Therefore, if a public servant in his subsequent position is not accused of any such criminal acts then there is no question of invoking the mischief rule. Protection to public servants under Section 19(1)(a) has to be confined to the time related criminal acts performed under the colour or authority for public servant’s own pleasure or benefit as categorized under Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15. This is the principle behind the test propounded by this Court, namely, the test of abuse of office.”