Supreme Court Split Verdict on Prior Sanction for Prosecuting Public Servants Under Anti-Corruption Law
A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This provision requires prior government approval before investigating public servants for official decisions. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, viewing it as a barrier to transparency. Conversely, Justice K.V. Viswanathan argued it is necessary to protect honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' He suggested that an independent authority like the Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction. The case has been referred to a larger three-judge bench for final determination.
Key Points
- Section 17A was introduced to prevent the harassment of public servants for bona fide official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision violates the principle of equality before the law.
- Justice Viswanathan emphasized that the Lokpal has the authority to inquire into allegations even against the Prime Minister.
- A split verdict occurs when judges on a bench disagree, requiring the case to be heard by a larger bench.
Exam Facts
- Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Lokpal and Lok Ayuktas Act
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.