The Crossbill News Desk
In a significant development with far-reaching implications for corruption probes against public officials, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 13) delivered a split verdict on the validity of a key provision requiring prior government approval before investigations can proceed.
A two-judge bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing challenges to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was introduced through a 2018 amendment.
Live Law reported that Justice Nagarathna struck down the provision as unconstitutional, holding that it defeats the very purpose of anti-corruption law by insulating dishonest officials from scrutiny.
According to her, Section 17A resurrects protections that had earlier been invalidated by the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy rulings, blocks inquiries at the threshold, and ends up benefitting the corrupt rather than the upright.
“Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken,” she said, describing it as an effort to “protect the corrupt.”
The case stemmed from a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which had challenged the 2018 amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that Parliament had unlawfully brought back safeguards that the court had already declared invalid in earlier judgments.
Justice Viswanathan, however, took a different view. He declined to strike down Section 17A and instead proposed that it be read down. In his opinion, the flaw did not lie in the existence of prior approval itself but in who grants it.
He suggested that the power should rest not with the executive but with an independent authority such as the Lokpal or the Lokayukta.
“Section 17A has no vice of invalid classification. The possibility of abuse is no ground to strike down Section 17A,” Justice Viswanathan stated.
He cautioned that scrapping the provision altogether could have unintended consequences, warning that it might result in policy paralysis.
Striking down Section 17A, he said, would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, adding that honest public servants require protection from frivolous and motivated investigations.
With the two judges divided on the issue, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is expected to constitute a larger bench to settle the constitutional question.
A two-judge bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan was hearing challenges to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was introduced through a 2018 amendment.
Live Law reported that Justice Nagarathna struck down the provision as unconstitutional, holding that it defeats the very purpose of anti-corruption law by insulating dishonest officials from scrutiny.
According to her, Section 17A resurrects protections that had earlier been invalidated by the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy rulings, blocks inquiries at the threshold, and ends up benefitting the corrupt rather than the upright.
“Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken,” she said, describing it as an effort to “protect the corrupt.”
The case stemmed from a petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which had challenged the 2018 amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that Parliament had unlawfully brought back safeguards that the court had already declared invalid in earlier judgments.
Justice Viswanathan, however, took a different view. He declined to strike down Section 17A and instead proposed that it be read down. In his opinion, the flaw did not lie in the existence of prior approval itself but in who grants it.
He suggested that the power should rest not with the executive but with an independent authority such as the Lokpal or the Lokayukta.
“Section 17A has no vice of invalid classification. The possibility of abuse is no ground to strike down Section 17A,” Justice Viswanathan stated.
He cautioned that scrapping the provision altogether could have unintended consequences, warning that it might result in policy paralysis.
Striking down Section 17A, he said, would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, adding that honest public servants require protection from frivolous and motivated investigations.
With the two judges divided on the issue, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who is expected to constitute a larger bench to settle the constitutional question.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment