CVC Issues Master Circular on Prosecution Sanction Under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) has issued Master Circular No. 05/MC/2026, consolidating all existing instructions relating to the procedure for processing requests for sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The circular supersedes earlier guidelines and aims to bring greater clarity, consistency, and uniformity in handling prosecution sanction cases across Ministries, Departments, Public Sector Enterprises, Public Sector Banks, Insurance Companies, and other organizations under the Commission’s jurisdiction.

The master circular serves as a comprehensive reference document for competent authorities responsible for considering requests for sanction to prosecute public servants accused of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Purpose of the Master Circular

The CVC has stated that over the years it had issued several circulars and advisory instructions governing prosecution sanction. To simplify compliance and eliminate the need to refer to multiple documents, these instructions have now been consolidated into a single master circular.

The circular has been issued in supersession of previous guidelines on prosecution sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as amended by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018.

Applicability

The circular applies to:

• Central Government Ministries and Departments
• Central Government organizations
• Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs)
• Public Sector Banks
• Public Sector Insurance Companies
• Autonomous bodies under the jurisdiction of the Central Vigilance Commission

Prior Sanction Remains Mandatory

The circular reiterates that courts cannot take cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against serving public servants without prior sanction from the competent authority.

However, following the amendments introduced in 2018, prior sanction is not required for prosecution of public servants who have retired, superannuated, or otherwise ceased to be in service.

Time Limit for Granting Sanction

The master circular reiterates the statutory timeline prescribed under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Upon receiving a request from the CBI seeking prosecution sanction, the competent authority should ordinarily take a decision within three months. Where legal consultation is necessary, this period may be extended by one additional month, provided reasons for the delay are recorded in writing.

Supreme Court Guidelines Incorporated

The circular incorporates various principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding consideration of prosecution sanction requests.

According to these guidelines:

• The competent authority performs an administrative function and should not attempt to conduct a mini-trial.
• Decisions should be based solely on the evidence collected during investigation.
• The authority should not seek comments from the accused public servant while considering prosecution sanction.
• The competent authority must independently apply its mind to the materials placed before it.
• Public interest in prosecuting corruption cases must be balanced with safeguards available to honest public servants against frivolous prosecution.

The circular emphasizes that sanction should neither be granted mechanically nor withheld without proper examination of the available records.

Cases Requiring Consultation with CVC

The circular also identifies situations where consultation with the Central Vigilance Commission is necessary.

These include cases where:

• The competent authority proposes to differ from the advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer.
• Sanction is to be accorded in respect of authorities where CVC advice is prescribed.
• The competent authority disagrees with the Commission’s earlier advice regarding prosecution sanction.
• Certain categories of cases covered under applicable DoPT guidelines require Commission’s advice before a final decision is taken.

Where the competent authority decides to accept the Commission’s advice, appropriate action should be taken. If the authority proposes to disagree with the Commission’s recommendation in specified cases, the matter may be referred to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) for further consideration.

Documents Required for Processing

The circular notes that prosecution proposals forwarded by the CBI should contain the complete investigation records, including:

• FIR
• Witness statements
• Disclosure statements
• Recovery memos
• Draft charge sheet
• Relevant documentary evidence
• Any other material collected during investigation

The competent authority is expected to examine the entire record carefully before arriving at an independent decision.

No Role in PMLA Prosecution Decisions

The Commission has clarified that its role is confined to offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It has no role in prosecution decisions relating to offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), where the competent authority is required to take a separate decision under the applicable legal provisions.

View Master Circular: