Legal provisions involved: Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Judgement by: Supreme Court of India (Split Verdict)
Judge/Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Facts
A petition challenged Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which says that no enquiry or investigation can be started against a public servant for decisions taken in official duty without prior approval from the government. The petitioner argued this blocks independent investigations into corruption. The two judges had different opinions, resulting in a split verdict.
Key legal provisions
Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (added in 2018)
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India
Issues raised
Whether requiring prior approval before investigating a public servant violates the Constitution or weakens anti-corruption laws?
Arguments of the case
The petitioner said Section 17A shields corrupt officials. The government said it protects honest officers from harassment.
Judgement
Justice Viswanathan said Section 17A is valid if the Lokpal/Lokayukta reviews and gives recommendations. Justice Nagarathna said it is unconstitutional because it creates unfair advantages for some officials and blocks investigations. Because of the split, the matter has been sent to the Chief Justice for a larger Bench.
