Why in the News?
A two judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India has delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior government approval before investigation against public servants for decisions taken in official capacity.
What is the Current Split Verdict?
- Justice K V Viswanathan
-
-
- Upheld Section 17A conditionally
- Held prior approval is needed to protect honest officers
- Said approval must come from an independent authority
- Linked Section 17A with Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013
- Approval to be based on binding opinion of Lokpal for Centre and Lokayukta for States.
-
- Justice B V Nagarathna
-
- Held Section 17A unconstitutional
- Called it “old wine in new bottle”
- Violates Article 14
- No rational nexus or intelligible differentia
- Protection already exists under Section 19 which requires sanction before prosecution
What is the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
- Enacted to consolidate laws on corruption among public servants
- Originated from recommendations of the Santhanam Committee (1962)
- Covers offences such as
- Bribery
- Criminal misconduct
- Undue advantage
- Applies to public servants, including government officials, judges, and local authority employees
What is Section 17A of PCA?
- Inserted through 2018 amendment
- Requires prior approval of the appropriate government before
- Inquiry or
- Investigation
- Applicable when alleged offence relates to
- A recommendation made or
- A decision taken by a public servant while discharging official duties
Rationale Behind Section 17A
- To protect honest officers from
- Frivolous
- Vexatious complaints
- Intended to prevent decision making paralysis or “play it safe” behaviour in bureaucracy
- Distinguishes between
- Good faith administrative decisions
- Intentional corruption
Earlier Supreme Court Rulings
- Vineet Narain vs Union of India (1998)
-
-
- Struck down the CBI’s Single Directive
- Held that prior sanction for investigation violates rule of law
-
- Dr Subramaniam Swamy vs Director, CBI (2014)
-
- Struck down Section 6A of DSPE Act
- Required prior approval for probing senior officers
- Declared violative of Article 14 (equality before law)
| [2025] Consider the following statements about Lokpal:Â
I. The power of Lokpal applies to public servants of India, but not to the Indian public servants posted outside India. II. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a Member of the Parliament or a Member of the Legislature of any State or Union Territory, and only the Chief Justice of India, whether incumbent or retired, has to be its Chairperson. III. The Chairperson or a Member shall not be a person of less than forty-five years of age on the date of assuming office. IV. Lokpal cannot inquire into the allegations of corruption against a sitting Prime Minister of India. Which of the statements given above is/ are correct? (a) III only (b) II and III (c) I and IV (d) None of the above statements is correct |
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
