Supreme Court Split Verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act

The Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict regarding the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. This section requires approval from central or state governments for probing offences related to official functions of public servants.

Justice KV Viswanathan's Judgement

• Upheld Section 17A as constitutionally valid, with approval dependent on recommendations from the Lokpal/Lokayukta.
• Argued that striking down Section 17A would lead to immediate police investigations into any corruption complaint, potentially resulting in frivolous or motivated cases.
• Highlighted that the provision is textually neutral, applying to any public servant based on actions, not rank.
• Emphasized protection for honest public servants from baseless complaints to prevent policy paralysis.
• Criticized hypothetical scenarios, stating constitutional validity should be judged in the current legal context.

Justice BV Nagarathna's Judgement

• Declared Section 17A unconstitutional as it violates Article 14 by protecting only certain public servants.
• Criticized the provision for creating arbitrariness by shielding higher-level officials without initial inquiries.
• Argued that prior approval for inquiries contradicts the Act's purpose of preventing corruption.
• Identified drawbacks, including policy bias and lack of safeguards against intra-departmental influences.
• Called for striking down the provision due to its potential to shield corrupt officials and conflict of interest.

Following the split verdict, the Supreme Court ordered the matter to be reviewed by an appropriate bench under the Chief Justice of India.