‘Offences Against the State (OAS) claim a distinct character within criminal law tied to the assumption of threat they pose to the very existence of state. This paper examines the distinctiveness of these offences through an analysis of a peculiar criminal law procedure of obtaining sanction for prosecution. The legal provision on ‘sanction for prosecution’ for OAS mandates the prior approval of the government before an accused can be brought to trial in a court. The deferral of the judicial process till the executive consents to trial, raises the following question-within a constitutional order governed by the principle of separation of powers, how does the 'political' intersect the domain of the 'judicial', in matters of prosecution? This paper interrogates this question through an analysis of the legal provision for granting sanction and the jurisprudence of sanction in India, to understand the relationship between the executive and the judiciary and its bearing on the constitutional principle of separation of powers. Constructing a theoretical framework of the ‘rationality question’ delving into the intention of the law, and the ‘consequentiality question’ exploring its effects, the paper shows how the judiciary cedes space for the political to make inroads into the domain of the judicial.

“危害国家罪（OAS）在刑法中具有独特的性质，与假设它们对国家的存在构成威胁有关。本文通过对获得起诉制裁的特殊刑法程序的分析来检验这些罪行的独特性。美洲国家组织关于“起诉制裁”的法律规定要求政府事先批准，然后才能将被告送上法庭受审。将司法程序推迟到行政部门同意审判，提出了以下问题——在由三权分立原则支配的宪法秩序中，“政治”如何与“司法”领域相交，在起诉方面？本文通过对印度实施制裁的法律条文和制裁法理的分析，探讨这一问题，以了解行政与司法之间的关系及其对宪法三权分立原则的影响。本文构建了一个“理性问题”的理论框架，深入研究法律的意图，“后果性问题”探索其影响，展示了司法如何让政治空间进入司法领域。