Section 17A validity split verdict by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a provision that mandates prior sanction before initiating any probe against a public servant for decisions taken in the discharge of official duties. The matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger bench to settle the issue conclusively.

Background of the legal challenge

Section 17A was introduced through the 2018 amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act. It bars any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a serving or former public servant without prior approval of the competent authority, when the alleged offence relates to recommendations or decisions made in official capacity. The provision was challenged through a public interest litigation filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, which argued that the requirement undermines independent investigation into corruption.

Divergent views of the judges

Justice B V Nagarathna held Section 17A to be unconstitutional, observing that mandatory prior sanction at the threshold forecloses inquiry, dilutes the object of the anti-corruption law, and ends up shielding corrupt officials. She noted that the provision runs contrary to the scheme of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which aims to ensure prompt and effective investigation of corruption offences.

Justice K V Viswanathan, however, upheld the validity of Section 17A. He emphasised the need to protect honest officers from frivolous or motivated investigations arising out of bona fide administrative decisions. Striking down the provision, he said, would be akin to “throwing the baby out with the bath water”, where the cure could be worse than the disease.

Reference to a larger bench

In view of the split verdict, the case will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India, Justice Surya Kant, for constitution of a larger bench. The final decision is expected to have far-reaching implications for the balance between protecting administrative decision-making and ensuring accountability under anti-corruption laws.

Imporatnt Facts for Exams

• Section 17A was inserted into the Prevention of Corruption Act through the 2018 amendment.
• It mandates prior sanction before enquiry or investigation against public servants for official decisions.
• The provision has been challenged on grounds of violating the object of anti-corruption law.
• A split verdict in the Supreme Court leads to reference before a larger bench.

Significance for governance and accountability

The outcome of the larger bench hearing will clarify the constitutional limits of prior sanction provisions and shape future corruption investigations involving public servants, influencing both administrative autonomy and institutional oversight by agencies and courts.