The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict on a crucial challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior approval before initiating an investigation against government officials in corruption cases.
A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan heard detailed arguments from both the Centre and the petitioner, Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), represented by Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
Centre Defends Section 17A as Protection for Honest Officers
Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly defended Section 17A, stating that it was aimed at protecting honest officers and promoting “fearless governance.” He argued that:
“17A, the way it is couched, in the most restrictive manner, is one more attempt of the legislature to have fearless governance ensuring honest officers are not punished and dishonest officers do not go scot-free.”
Mehta added that the provision does not give blanket immunity, as decisions to grant or deny approval are recorded through reasoned orders and remain subject to judicial review. He emphasized:
“Ultimately, these orders could be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny and the aggrieved party could always challenge it.”
He also pointed out that in an era of “aggressive activism,” refusals to grant approval are quickly challenged in courts:
“Now, in the present day of this aggressive activism, if I may use that expression, the moment it is refused, the complainant comes with RTI. He comes with documents and he immediately rushes to the court challenging non-grant of approval.”
CBI Data on Corruption Complaints Since 2018
In response to queries from the Bench, Mehta stated that CBI data showed 2,395 complaints requiring either preliminary inquiry or investigation since the amended Section 17A came into effect in 2018. Of these:
- Approval was granted in 1,406 cases (approximately 59%)
- Approval was denied in 989 cases (roughly 41%)
He stressed that such decisions were taken carefully and in accordance with the law.
Petitioner Alleges Shielding of Corrupt Officials
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, contended that Section 17A had become a tool to shield corrupt officials and obstruct legitimate inquiries. He cited earlier Supreme Court precedents that had struck down similar provisions, particularly the judgment concerning the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
Responding to the government’s claim that prior approval was necessary to protect honest officers from harassment, Bhushan argued:
“There is no harassment, no coercive action, no arrest, no search or seizure at the stage of preliminary enquiry.”
He submitted that such an enquiry merely assesses whether a complaint has substance, and should not require prior sanction.
When Bhushan warned that upholding Section 17A could amount to ignoring judicial discipline, Justice Viswanathan responded sharply:
“Unless we agree with you, we violate judicial discipline?”
He added:
“To say that unless you go my way or the highway, you are committing impropriety, is completely unjustified.”
Court Stresses Need for Balance
Earlier, during the August 5 hearing, the Bench acknowledged the delicate balance involved in such matters, observing that there was a need to protect honest officers from frivolous complaints while ensuring corrupt officials are not shielded.
As arguments concluded, the court reserved its verdict.
