Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict on Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act
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 section mandates prior government sanction before investigating a public servant for decisions made in their official capacity. Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared the provision unconstitutional, while Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld it, arguing it protects honest officers from frivolous complaints and 'policy paralysis.' The case will now be referred to a larger three-judge bench for a final decision on balancing public probity with officer protection.
Key Points
- Section 17A was introduced to provide a filter against malicious prosecution of public servants for official decisions.
- Justice Nagarathna argued that the provision is unconstitutional as it creates an arbitrary distinction between classes of public servants.
- Justice Viswanathan suggested that independent bodies like Lokpal should handle the grant of sanction to ensure impartiality.
- The split verdict necessitates a referral to the Chief Justice of India for placement before a three-judge bench.
Exam Facts
- Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan (bench members)
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.