Why in News?

• The Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
• The provision, introduced through the 2018 Amendment, mandates prior approval/sanction before initiating enquiry or investigation against public servants for decisions taken in the discharge of official duties.
• The challenge was filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), arguing that the provision shields corruption and undermines accountability.
• Given the divergence of views, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) for the constitution of a larger Bench.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What is Section 17A of the PC Act?
• Divergent Judicial Opinions
• Key Constitutional and Governance Issues Involved
• Challenges Highlighted and Way Ahead
• Conclusion

What is Section 17A of the PC Act?

• It requires prior approval from the competent authority before conducting any inquiry or investigation against a public servant for actions taken in official capacity.
• Objective (as per government):
  • Protect honest officers
  • Prevent frivolous, vexatious complaints
  • Avoid policy paralysis

Divergent Judicial Opinions:

• Justice B.V. Nagarathna: (Section 17A is illegal, unequal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional)
  • Violates Article 14 (Right to Equality): Protection effectively extends only to higher civil servants involved in decision-making. Classification based on “nature of duties” has no rational nexus with the object of the Act.
  • Arbitrary and against Rule of Law: Forecloses even a preliminary enquiry without prior approval. Prevents discovery of truth and shields wrongdoing.
  • Contrary to the object of the PC Act: Anti-corruption law aims to detect and punish corruption, not delay or prevent investigation. Provision “protects the corrupt rather than the honest”.
  • Policy paralysis argument rejected: Instead of protecting honest officers, Section 17A may embolden mala fide decision-making. Honest officials do not require such statutory protection.
• Justice K.V. Viswanathan: (Section 17A is constitutionally valid [with safeguards])
  • Possibility of misuse cannot be equated to unconstitutionality: Striking down the provision would be like “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.
  • Need to prevent policy paralysis: Fear of instant FIRs and coercive investigations may lead to “Play-it-safe syndrome”, administrative inertia.
  • Fine balance required: Between protecting officials from mala fide prosecution, and ensuring probity in public life.
  • Danger of immediate investigations: Without prior screening, even frivolous complaints could trigger FIRs and arrests. Such a regime would be regressive.
  • Independent screening mechanism suggested:
    • Approval should depend on recommendations of an independent authority such as Lokpal (at Centre), Lokayukta (in States).
    • Lokpal has authority to inquire even against the Prime Minister.
    • Independent inquiry into facts should precede sanction.

Key Constitutional and Governance Issues Involved:

• Article 14 – Equality Before Law: Whether selective protection to higher officials amounts to hostile discrimination.
• Rule of Law: Does requiring prior approval subordinate investigation to executive discretion?
• Separation of Powers: Extent of executive control over criminal investigation.
• Accountability vs administrative autonomy: Tension between effective governance, and anti-corruption enforcement.

Challenges Highlighted and Way Ahead:

• Shielding corruption: Delay or denial of approval may stall investigations indefinitely. Prevent indefinite delays in granting or refusing sanction.
• Executive interference: Sanctioning authority may be influenced by political or bureaucratic considerations. Statutory role for Lokpal/Lokayukta in sanction decisions. Preliminary scrutiny to assess genuineness of complaint.
• Unequal protection: Lower-level officials face immediate scrutiny, higher officials enjoy insulation. Authoritative ruling to resolve constitutional conflict.
• Erosion of public trust: Perception that anti-corruption law favours the powerful. Parliament may revisit Section 17A to align it with constitutional principles, anti-corruption objectives.

Conclusion:

• The split verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act reflects a deeper constitutional dilemma—how to protect honest decision-making without weakening the fight against corruption.
• While one view sees the provision as a shield for the corrupt, the other considers it a necessary safeguard against governance paralysis, subject to independent oversight.
• The final word now rests with a larger Bench of the Supreme Court, whose decision will significantly shape the future of anti-corruption jurisprudence, administrative accountability, and rule of law in India.