Syllabus: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability
Background and Case Context
- A Supreme Court two-judge Bench delivered a split verdict on Section 17A validity.
- The case arose in CPIL versus Union of India, decided on January 13.
- The Bench comprised Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
- Section 17A mandates prior government sanction before corruption inquiries against public servants.
- Petitioners argued this provision enables the executive to stall anti-corruption investigations.
Legal and Constitutional Framework
- The challenge relied on Article 14 and the rule of law principles.
- The section restricts police from initiating inquiry into official decisions without prior approval.
- The petition cited conflict with mandatory FIR registration for cognisable offences.
Judicial Precedents Referenced
- Vineet Narain versus Union of India (1998) quashed the CBI Single Directive.
- The Court held investigations must remain free from executive interference.
- The ruling followed the N.N. Vohra Committee (1993) findings on criminal-political nexus.
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy versus Director, CBI (2014) invalidated Section 6A of DSPE Act.
- The judgment declared officer classification for investigation discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Petitioners’ Arguments
- Section 17A expands unconstitutional protection to all public servants, not limited categories.
- The provision defies earlier rulings safeguarding equality before law and institutional independence.
- Mandatory approval contradicts the Lalita Kumari (2014) directive on immediate investigation.
Government’s Defence
- The government argued earlier invalidated directives were administrative, not statutory.
- It claimed previous judgments addressed status-based classifications, not universal protection provisions.
Divergence Between Judges
- Justice Nagarathna held Section 17A protects corruption and undermines investigative autonomy.
- She highlighted conflict of interest when government sanctions inquiries into departmental decisions.
- Justice Viswanathan accepted prior approval but insisted on independent agency oversight.
- He argued removing safeguards may cause policy paralysis and harassment of honest officials.
- He proposed the Lokpal as a neutral filter for sanction recommendations.
Core Constitutional Issue
- The dispute centres on balancing public servant protection and anti-corruption effectiveness.
- The matter questions whether prior approval itself is unconstitutional or only its authority.
Current Status
- The case has been referred to the Chief Justice of India. A larger Bench will conclusively determine the constitutional validity of Section 17A.