Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Corruption Probe Rules
The Supreme Court of India announced a divided judgment on Tuesday regarding a crucial anti-corruption provision. The court examined the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This section prevents investigative agencies from probing corruption allegations against government officials without obtaining prior permission from the central government.
Two Judges, Two Different Opinions
A bench comprising Justices K.V. Vishwanathan and B.V. Nagarathna could not reach a unanimous decision. Justice Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional. She argued that no prior sanction should be necessary to prosecute a public servant.
"Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down," Justice Nagarathna stated firmly. She emphasized that the requirement for prior approval contradicts the fundamental purpose of the anti-corruption law. According to her, this provision effectively protects corrupt individuals rather than honest officials.
Justice Nagarathna referenced previous landmark judgments, including Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy cases. She pointed out that Section 17A attempts to revive elements previously invalidated by the court. "This provision forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt," she observed, highlighting the pervasive nature of corruption in the country.
The Counter Argument for Protection
Justice K.V. Vishwanathan presented the opposing view. He upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17A, but with an important condition. He suggested that the Lokpal or state Lokayukta should decide whether to grant prosecution sanction against a government official.
"Section 17A is constitutionally valid," Justice Vishwanathan asserted, "subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lok Ayukta of the State."
The judge warned that striking down the entire provision would be excessive. "It would amount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater," he remarked. He stressed the need to shield honest public servants from frivolous and malicious investigations that could cause irreparable damage to their reputation.
Justice Vishwanathan cited the Bhagavad Gita to illustrate the importance of protecting dignity. He noted that in today's digital age, even false accusations can permanently tarnish a person's image. The judge emphasized maintaining a careful balance between preventing harassment of officials and ensuring accountability in public office.
Case Background and Legal Challenge
The constitutional challenge originated from a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, argued that Section 17A has become an instrument to shield corrupt officials and obstruct legitimate investigations.
The petition contended that Section 17A essentially resurrects the controversial 'single directive' provision. This earlier rule, under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, required the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to obtain central government approval before investigating senior officials.
What Section 17A Actually Says
The disputed provision clearly states that no police officer can investigate any offence allegedly committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act without previous approval. This applies when the alleged offence relates to recommendations or decisions made by the official in discharge of their duties.
The law further specifies that the concerned authority must convey its decision within three months. This period may be extended by one additional month if the authority records reasons for the delay in writing.
Next Steps and Referral
Given the split verdict, the two-judge bench has referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India. They have directed the court registry to place the case before the Chief Justice for constitution of an appropriate larger bench. This new bench will hear the matter afresh and deliver a conclusive judgment.
The Supreme Court's divided opinion reflects the complex legal and ethical questions surrounding anti-corruption measures. The final decision will significantly impact how India investigates corruption allegations against government officials moving forward.
