Citizen-initiated corruption complaints are maintainable, and sanction requests must be decided promptly on a prima facie basis.

A private citizen may initiate a corruption complaint against a public servant, because the statutory scheme does not bar a complaint at the filing stage and locus standi is generally not restrictive in criminal law. Sanction for prosecution operates later, at cognizance, and the Special Judge may consider a private complaint subject to compliance with the sanction requirement at the proper stage. The competent authority must treat sanction as an administrative function, assess only whether the material shows a prima facie offence, avoid a parallel inquiry, and decide the request with reasonable dispatch in line with anti-corruption directions and guidelines. The contrary approach was rejected and the law was clarified accordingly.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a citizen can file a private complaint for prosecuting a public servant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) whether the competent authority is required to decide a request for sanction for prosecution within a reasonable time and in accordance with the directions and guidelines governing anti-corruption prosecution.

Issue (i): whether a citizen can file a private complaint for prosecuting a public servant for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The statutory scheme does not bar a citizen from setting the criminal law in motion. Locus standi is generally foreign to criminal jurisprudence unless a statute expressly restricts it. The provisions governing sanction operate at the stage of cognizance and do not create a bar on the filing of a complaint itself. The earlier authorities relied upon establish that a private complaint for corruption offences is maintainable and that a Special Judge may take cognizance on such a complaint, subject to compliance with the sanction requirement at the proper stage.

Conclusion: The right of a citizen to file a complaint was affirmed in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the competent authority is required to decide a request for sanction for prosecution within a reasonable time and in accordance with the directions and guidelines governing anti-corruption prosecution.

Analysis: Sanction for prosecution is an administrative act and the authority must consider only whether the material placed before it prima facie discloses an offence. It cannot conduct a parallel inquiry or undertake a detailed adjudication on truthfulness of allegations. The directions in the earlier public interest litigation on corruption required sanction decisions to be made within the stipulated time, and the vigilance guidelines reinforced the same principle. Delay in considering sanction undermines the rule of law, frustrates access to justice, and may defeat prosecution of corruption offences. The competent authority was therefore bound to apply its mind and decide the request with reasonable dispatch.

Conclusion: The competent authority was required to take an appropriate decision on the sanction request without undue delay, and the contrary approach was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the appellant's challenge succeeded, with the law clarified on the maintainability of citizen-initiated corruption complaints and on the duty of the sanctioning authority to act promptly.

Ratio Decidendi: A private citizen may initiate a corruption complaint against a public servant, and the sanctioning authority must decide a request for sanction as an administrative matter on a prima facie appraisal of the material, within a reasonable time and without undertaking a parallel inquiry.

---