Mandatory sanction safeguards under UAPA require strict timelines and independent review, while belated sanction challenges need justification.

A challenge to the validity of a sanction order should ordinarily be raised at the earliest available stage before the trial court, though a later challenge is not absolutely barred if delay is explained and the objection was not previously taken. The sanction regime under Section 45 of the UAPA read with Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules requires strict compliance with the prescribed timelines and an independent review by the appointed authority, because these safeguards control executive power and protect the accused. The mandatory nature of those requirements means non-compliance can vitiate the proceedings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the validity of the sanction order can be challenged at any stage. (ii) Whether the timelines in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules and the requirement of independent review under Section 45 of the UAPA are mandatory and whether non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.

Issue (i): Whether the validity of the sanction order can be challenged at any stage.

Analysis: A challenge to sanction should ordinarily be raised at the earliest available stage before the Trial Court. A belated challenge is not barred altogether, but the party raising it at the appellate stage must explain the delay and show why the objection was not taken earlier. The challenge should not be permitted to operate as a device to stall the proceedings.

Conclusion: The validity of sanction can be challenged later as well, but ordinarily the challenge must be raised at the earliest opportunity and a belated objection requires justification.

Issue (ii): Whether the timelines in Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules and the requirement of independent review under Section 45 of the UAPA are mandatory and whether non-compliance vitiates the proceedings.

Analysis: Section 45 of the UAPA, read with Rules 3 and 4 of the 2008 Rules, creates a structured sanction regime that requires an independent review by the appointed authority followed by consideration by the Government within the prescribed time. In view of the penal nature of the statute and the purpose of the safeguards introduced by amendment, the time limits are not merely directory. They are intended to control executive power and protect the accused. Independent review and application of mind are essential components of valid compliance, though their adequacy and factual observance are matters to be tested on evidence at trial.

Conclusion: The timelines are mandatory and must be strictly followed, and independent review is a necessary statutory requirement.

Final Conclusion: The appeal did not succeed, and the criminal proceedings were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a penal statute creates a specific sanction procedure with prescribed time limits and an intervening independent review, those safeguards are mandatory and strict compliance is required; a challenge to sanction should ordinarily be taken at the earliest stage, though a later challenge is not absolutely barred.

---