Key Details of the Supreme Court Verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
On January 13, the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988. This section prevents police officers from investigating public servants without prior government sanction. The verdict was delivered by a two-judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Background
- The case was brought forward by The Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) vs Union of India.
- The challenge was based on the premise that corruption undermines the rule of law, and government power to halt investigations could exacerbate corruption.
- Previous notable cases include:
- Vineet Narain vs Union of India (1998): Quashed the Single Directive, asserting that the CBI should decide on investigations, not the executive.
- Subramanian Swamy vs Director, CBI & Anr (2014): Deemed Section 6A of the DSPE Act unconstitutional for its discriminatory classification based on officer status, violating Article 14.
Arguments Against Section 17A
- The section was seen as contradicting previous court decisions by expanding protection to all public servant levels.
- Petitioners argued it conflicted with the Lalita Kumari vs Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors (2014) ruling, which mandates FIR registration and investigation for cognizable offenses.
Supreme Court Judgments
- Justice Nagarathna:
- Deemed Section 17A unconstitutional as it protects corrupt officials by requiring prior government sanction for investigations.
- Highlighted conflict of interest in allowing government officers within the same department to grant investigation consent.
- Justice Viswanathan:
- Supported the idea of prior sanction but suggested it should come from an independent agency, like the Lokpal, not the government.
- Warned that striking down the section could lead to policy paralysis, stressing the need to protect honest officials from frivolous probes.
Core Disagreement and Conclusion
- The disagreement centered on balancing protection for honest officials with effective anti-corruption measures.
- Both judges agreed the section would be unconstitutional if the government retained sanction powers.
- The case has been referred to the Chief Justice of India for further deliberation by a larger Bench.
Contributors to the case include advocates Prashant Bhushan and Cheryl D’Souza, who represented the petitioners in the Supreme Court.
