Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Controversial Corruption Law Clause
The Supreme Court of India has issued a divided judgment regarding the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This controversial provision requires prior approval before investigating public servants for actions taken in their official capacity.
Two Judges, Two Different Views
Justice B V Nagarathna declared Section 17A unconstitutional, stating it "protects the corrupt" and should be struck down. She argued that the requirement for prior sanction contradicts the fundamental purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that honest officials do not need such protection, and the provision hinders proper inquiry into corruption allegations.
In contrast, Justice K V Viswanathan upheld the validity of Section 17A, but with an important condition. He ruled that the sanction must be decided by the Lokpal or the state Lokayukta. Justice Viswanathan maintained that the provision does not suffer from invalid classification, and the mere possibility of abuse does not justify striking it down.
The Core of the Controversy
Section 17A was introduced through a 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act. It mandates that police officers must obtain previous approval from the central or state government before investigating public servants for offenses related to their official duties. The NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenged this provision before the Supreme Court.
Justice Nagarathna criticized Section 17A as an attempt to revive provisions previously invalidated in landmark judgments like Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy cases. She asserted that the requirement of prior approval effectively shields corrupt individuals from investigation.
Justice Viswanathan expressed concern about creating structural imbalances if Section 17A were removed. He noted that striking down the provision would create a dichotomy where complaints through the Lokpal face screening while those through police channels do not.
Background and Implications
The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on this matter on August 6, 2025. The split verdict means the issue will likely be referred to a larger bench for final determination. This legal battle highlights ongoing tensions between protecting public servants from harassment and ensuring effective corruption investigations.
The Prevention of Corruption Act aims to combat corruption among public officials. Section 17A represents one of the most debated amendments to this legislation. Its fate now depends on further judicial review following the Supreme Court's divided opinion.
