New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, January 13, delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of a 2018 provision of the anti-graft law, which mandates prior sanction for initiating a probe against a government servant in a corruption case.
While Justice BV Nagarathna said Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unconstitutional and needs to be struck down, Justice KV Viswanathan held the provision as constitutional, stressing on the need to protect honest officers.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced in July 2018, bars any “enquiry or inquiry or investigation” against a public servant for recommendations made in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority.
The top court’s judgment came on a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) against the validity of amended Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the Prevention of Corruption Act, forecloses inquiry and protects corrupt, Justice Nagarathna said.
Justice Viswanathan said striking down Section 17A will be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water and the “cure will be worse than the disease.”
“Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lokayukta of the State…
“The safeguard of this provision will strengthen the hands of honest officers but also ensure that the corrupt are brought to book. It will guarantee that the administrative machinery attracts the best talent for the service of the nation,” Justice Viswanathan said.
The case will now be placed before Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant for forming a larger bench to hear the matter again for a final decision.
“Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by us, we direct the Registry to place this matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh,” the bench said.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the NGO, had argued that the provisions crippled the anti-corruption law as sanctions were not usually forthcoming from the government, which was the “competent authority.”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had appeared for the Union government.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Neha Khan | | 
