Syllabus: Important aspects of governance, transparency and accountability
Context
- Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on constitutional validity of Section 17A, PCA, 1988.
- The case arose from a PIL by CPIL challenging prior approval for corruption investigations.
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- The Act originated from the Santhanam Committee (1962–64) recommendations on curbing corruption.
- It consolidates laws punishing bribery, criminal misconduct, and undue advantage by public servants.
- “Public servant” includes government employees, judges, and persons performing public duties.
- “Public duty” covers actions affecting government, public, or community-wide interests.
Section 17A: Legal Mandate
- Inserted through the 2018 amendment to distinguish corruption from good-faith administrative decisions.
- Requires prior government approval before inquiry or investigation against a public servant.
- Applies to decisions or recommendations taken during discharge of official functions.
- Aims to prevent fear-driven inaction and protect officers from frivolous complaints.
Earlier Supreme Court Rulings
- Vineet Narain (1998) struck down the CBI’s “Single Directive” requiring prior investigation sanction.
- The Court held investigations must remain free from executive interference.
- Section 6A, DSPE Act (2003) required approval for probing senior officers.
- Dr Subramaniam Swamy (2014) invalidated Section 6A for violating Article 14 equality principle.
Current Split Verdict
- Justice K.V. Viswanathan supported prior approval to protect honest officials from harassment.
- Warned of a “play-it-safe” bureaucracy without procedural safeguards.
- Upheld Section 17A only if approval comes from an independent authority.
- linked approvals to Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 for binding recommendations.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared Section 17A unconstitutional and discriminatory.
- Argued it lacks intelligible differentia and rational legislative nexus under Article 14.
- Noted Section 19 already provides prosecution-stage protection for honest officials.
Reforms Suggested
- Ensure swift disposal of corruption cases to strengthen deterrence against guilty public servants.
- Impose time-bound punishment mechanisms to reinforce accountability within public institutions.
- Introduce penalties for false and malicious complaints to discourage vexatious allegations.
- Establish safeguards to filter frivolous complaints before initiating formal investigations.
- Balance protections to prevent harassment of honest officials while enabling effective anti-corruption enforcement.
Conclusion
- The issue awaits resolution by a larger Constitution Bench.
- The balance lies between administrative protection and effective anti-corruption enforcement.