Criminal laws in India by way of “sanctions” allow for protective discrimination in favour of public officials.[1] Under various laws, sanctions are required to investigate and prosecute public officials. Over the past 15 years these provisions of law have been revisited by the judiciary and the legislature. Recently the Supreme Court in the Subramanian Swamy Case has suggested the concept of a deemed sanction. We look at the history of the requirement of sanction under criminal laws. Requirement of sanction to investigate certain public servants of the union government was introduced through a government notification[2]. The Criminal Procedure Code 1973 and the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 provide that to prosecute a public servant, permission or sanction has to be secured from the government (central or state) for which the official works. Arguments that are often advanced in favour of such sanctions are that these ensure that (a) frivolous and vexatious cases are not filed, (b) public officials are not harassed, and (c) the efficacy of administrative machinery is not tampered with. Further, the requirement of sanction to investigate was also defended by the government before the Supreme Court in certain cases. In Vineet Narain vs. Union of India 1997[3], the government had argued that the CBI may not have the requisite expertise to determine whether the evidence was sufficient for filing a prima facie case. It was also argued that the Act instituting the CBI, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (DSPE Act), granted the power of superintendence, and therefore direction, of the CBI to the central government. The Court in this case struck down the requirement of sanction to investigate. It held that “supervision” by the government could not extend to control over CBI’s investigations. As for prosecution, the Court affixed a time frame of three months to grant sanction. However, there was no clarity on what was to be done if sanction was not granted within such time. Following that judgment, the DSPE Act was amended in 2003, specifically requiring the CBI to secure a sanction before it investigated certain public servants. More recently, the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 2011 that is pending before the Rajya Sabha, removed the requirement of sanction to investigate and prosecute public servants in relation to corruption. Recently, Mr. Subramanian Swamy approached the Supreme Court for directions on his request for sanction to prosecute Mr. A Raja in relation to the 2G Scam. As per the Supreme Court, judgment in Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr, Mr. Swamy’s request was pending with the department for over 16 months. The Supreme Court held that denial of a timely decision on grant of sanction is a violation of due process of law (Right to equality before law read with Right to life and personal liberty). The Court reiterated the three month time frame for granting sanctions. It suggested that Parliament consider that in case the decision is not taken within three months, sanction would be deemed to be granted. The prosecution would then be responsible for filing the charge sheet within 15 days of the expiry of this period.
[1] Subramanian Swamy vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 1193 of 2012 dated January 31, 2012
[2] Single Directive, No. 4.7.3
[3] AIR 1998 SC 889
Recently, the Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare submitted its report to the Parliament on the National Commission for Human Resource for Health Bill, 2011. The objective of the Bill is to “ensure adequate availability of human resources in the health sector in all states”. It seeks to set up the National Commission for Human Resources for Health (NCHRH), National Board for Health Education (NBHE), and the National Evaluation and Assessment Council (NEAC) in order to determine and regulate standards of health education in the country. It separates regulation of the education sector from that of professions such as law, medicine and nursing, and establishes professional councils at the national and state levels to regulate the professions. See here for PRS Bill Summary. The Standing Committee recommended that this Bill be withdrawn and a revised Bill be introduced in Parliament after consulting stakeholders. It felt that concerns of the professional councils such as the Medical Council of India and the Dental Council of India were not adequately addressed. Also, it noted that the powers and functions of the NCHRH and the National Commission on Higher Education and Research (to be established under the Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 to regulate the higher education sector in the country) were overlapping in many areas. Finally, it also expressed concern over the acute shortage of qualified health workers in the country as well as variations among states and rural and urban areas. As per the 2001 Census, the estimated density of all health workers (qualified and unqualified) is about 20% less than the World Health Organisation’s norm of 2.5 health workers per 1000 population. See here for PRS Standing Committee Summary. Shortfall of health workers in rural areas Public health care in rural areas is provided through a multi-tier network. At the lowest level, there are sub health-centres for every population of 5,000 in the plains and 3,000 in hilly areas. The next level consists of Primary Health Centres (PHCs) for every population of 30,000 in the plains and 20,000 in the hills. Generally, each PHC caters to a cluster of Gram Panchayats. PHCs are required to have one medical officer and 14 other staff, including one Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM). There are Community Health Centres (CHCs) for every population of 1,20,000 in the plains and 80,000 in hilly areas. These sub health centres, PHCs and CHCs are linked to district hospitals. As on March 2011, there are 14,8124 sub health centres, 23,887 PHCs and 4809 CHCs in the country.[i] Sub-Health Centres and Primary Health Centres
Table 1: State-wise comparison of vacancy in PHCs
|
Doctors at PHCs |
ANM at PHCs and Sub-Centres |
|||||
| State | Sanctioned post | Vacancy | % of vacancy | Sanctioned post | Vacancy | % of vacancy |
| Chhattisgarh | 1482 | 1058 | 71 | 6394 | 964 | 15 |
| West Bengal | 1807 | 801 | 44 | 10,356 | NA | 0 |
| Maharashtra | 3618 | 1326 | 37 | 21,122 | 0 | 0 |
| Uttar Pradesh | 4509 | 1648 | 36 | 25,190 | 2726 | 11 |
| Mizoram | 57 | 20 | 35 | 388 | 0 | 0 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 1238 | 424 | 34 | 11,904 | 0 | 0 |
| Gujarat | 1123 | 345 | 31 | 7248 | 817 | 11 |
| Andaman & Nicobar Isld | 40 | 12 | 30 | 214 | 0 | 0 |
| Odisha | 725 | 200 | 28 | 7442 | 0 | 0 |
| Tamil Nadu | 2326 | 622 | 27 | 9910 | 136 | 1 |
| Himachal Pradesh | 582 | 131 | 22 | 2213 | 528 | 24 |
| Uttarakhand | 299 | 65 | 22 | 2077 | 0 | 0 |
| Manipur | 240 | 48 | 20 | 984 | 323 | 33 |
| Haryana | 651 | 121 | 19 | 5420 | 386 | 7 |
| Sikkim | 48 | 9 | 19 | 219 | 0 | 0 |
| Meghalaya | 127 | 23 | 18 | 667 | 0 | 0 |
| Delhi | 22 | 3 | 14 | 43 | 0 | 0 |
| Goa | 46 | 5 | 11 | 260 | 20 | 8 |
| Karnataka | 2310 | 221 | 10 | 11,180 | 0 | 0 |
| Kerala | 1204 | 82 | 7 | 4232 | 59 | 1 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 2424 | 76 | 3 | 24,523 | 2876 | 12 |
| Rajasthan | 1478 | 6 | 0.4 | 14,348 | 0 | 0 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Assam | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Bihar | 2078 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Chandigarh | 0 | 0 | NA | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| Dadra & Nagar Haveli | 6 | 0 | NA | 40 | 0 | 0 |
| Daman & Diu | 3 | 0 | NA | 26 | 0 | 0 |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 750 | 0 | NA | 2282 | 0 | 0 |
| Jharkhand | 330 | 0 | NA | 4288 | 0 | 0 |
| Lakshadweep | 4 | 0 | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Nagaland | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| Puducherry | 37 | 0 | NA | 72 | 0 | 0 |
| Punjab | 487 | 0 | NA | 4044 | 0 | 0 |
| Tripura | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0 |
| India | 30,051 | 7,246 | 24 | 1,77,103 | 8,835 | 5 |
| Sources: National Rural Health Mission (available here), PRS.Note: The data for all states is as of March 2011 except for some states where data is as of 2010. For doctors, these states are Bihar, UP, Mizoram and Delhi. For ANMs, these states are Odisha and Uttar Pradesh. | ||||||
Community Health Centres
Table 2: Vacancies in CHCs of medical specialists
| Surgeons | Gynaecologists | Physicians | Paediatricians | |
| State |
% of vacancy |
|||
| Andaman & NicobarIsland | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| Andhra Pradesh | 74 | 0 | 45 | 3 |
| Arunachal Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Assam | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Bihar | 41 | 44 | 60 | 38 |
| Chandigarh | 50 | 40 | 50 | 100 |
| Chhattisgarh | 85 | 85 | 90 | 84 |
| Dadra & Nagar Haveli | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daman & Diu | 0 | 100 | 0 | 100 |
| Delhi | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Goa | 20 | 20 | 67 | 66 |
| Gujarat | 77 | 73 | 0 | 91 |
| Haryana | 71 | 80 | 94 | 85 |
| Himachal Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Jammu & Kashmir | 34 | 34 | 53 | 63 |
| Jharkhand | 45 | 0 | 81 | 61 |
| Karnataka | 33 | NA | NA | NA |
| Kerala | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Lakshadweep | 0 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| Madhya Pradesh | 78 | 69 | 76 | 58 |
| Maharashtra | 21 | 0 | 34 | 0 |
| Manipur | 100 | 94 | 94 | 87 |
| Meghalaya | 50 | NA | 100 | 50 |
| Mizoram | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Nagaland | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Odisha | 44 | 45 | 62 | 41 |
| Puducherry | 0 | 0 | 100 | NA |
| Punjab | 16 | 36 | 40 | 48 |
| Rajasthan | 57% | 46 | 49 | 24 |
| Sikkim | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Tamil Nadu | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tripura | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Uttar Pradesh | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Uttarakhand | 69 | 63 | 74 | 40 |
| West Bengal | 0 | 57 | 0 | 78 |
| India | 56 | 47 | 59 | 49 |
| Sources: National Rural Health Mission (available here), PRS. | ||||
[i]. “Rural Healthcare System in India”, National Rural Health Mission (available here).
