Split verdict on constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The matter will now be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant.
The verdict came on a public interest litigation filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL)
The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of a controversial provision of India’s anti-corruption law that requires prior government approval before investigating public servants for alleged graft.
A two-judge Bench differed on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a provision introduced in 2018, which bars investigative agencies from even beginning a probe against a serving or former government official for decisions taken in the course of official duties without prior sanction from a competent authority.
Justice BV Nagarathna held that Section 17A is unconstitutional and must be struck down, observing that the requirement of prior approval defeats the very purpose of the anti-graft law. The provision, she said, shuts the door on preliminary inquiries and ends up shielding corrupt officials rather than promoting clean governance.
“Requiring sanction at the threshold forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt,” Justice Nagarathna said, adding that the provision runs contrary to the core objectives of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice KV Viswanathan, however, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17A, cautioning that removing the safeguard entirely could expose honest officers to harassment for bona fide decisions taken in public interest. Striking down the provision, he said, would be like “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” warning that the remedy could prove worse than the problem itself.
Given the split verdict, the matter will now be placed before Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, who will constitute a larger Bench to hear the case and deliver a final ruling.
What is Section 17A and why is it controversial?
Section 17A was added to the Prevention of Corruption Act in July 2018 as part of amendments aimed at protecting public servants from frivolous or motivated investigations. In simple terms, the provision requires investigative agencies to obtain prior approval from the government or the relevant authority before starting any inquiry or investigation against a public servant for actions linked to official decisions or recommendations.
Critics argue that this prior sanction requirement creates a protective shield around public officials and delays or blocks corruption probes at the very initial stage. Supporters, however, say it is necessary to ensure that honest officers are not targeted for policy decisions taken in good faith.
The original Prevention of Corruption Act, enacted in 1988, is the primary law used to prosecute corruption among public officials. It criminalises acts such as bribery, abuse of official position, and obtaining undue advantage, and empowers agencies like the CBI to investigate and prosecute such offences.
The verdict came on a public interest litigation filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), which challenged the validity of Section 17A on the ground that it weakens anti-corruption mechanisms and undermines accountability in public administration.
(With Inputs from PTI)
