NEW DELHI: In an important judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the validity of the 2018 provision in the anti-graft law that mandates prior government approval before investigating public officials in corruption cases.
The verdict was pronounced by a two-judge Bench of the apex court, headed by Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice K V Viswanathan.
The court passed the judgment after hearing a writ petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the amendments introduced to the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 in 2018, with the principal challenge directed against the newly inserted Section 17A.
Justice Viswanathan upheld Section 17A of the PC Act, while, on the other hand, Justice Nagarathna held that the provision deserved to be struck down.
The apex court had earlier reserved judgment on August 6, 2025, after extensively hearing the petitioner, CPIL, the respondents and other parties in the case.
Following the split verdict, the matter will now be placed before Chief Justice Surya Kant, who will assign a larger Bench to hear the case afresh.
Delivering her judgment, Justice Nagarathna observed that the provision was an attempt to “protect the corrupt”.
“Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken. This provision is an attempt to resurrect what has been earlier struck down in the Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy judgments," he added.
"The requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act, and it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest and those with integrity who really do not require any protection,” Justice Nagarathna observed.
On the other hand, Justice Viswanathan held that an independent agency, which is free from the executive, must decide the question of sanction. He therefore directed that the sanction must be decided by the Lokpal or Lokayukta. Section 17A was read down to that extent.
“Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lokpal or the Lokayukta of the State,” Justice Viswanathan observed.
He further added that striking down the provision would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bath water” and that, unless honest public servants are shielded from frivolous investigations, a “policy paralysis” would set in.
Justice Viswanathan stressed that a fine balance has to be maintained between the need to protect a public servant from mala fide cases and the importance of upholding probity in public office.
Earlier, during the hearings in the top court, advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner CPIL, argued that the requirement of prior approval for investigation reintroduced a protection that had already been struck down by the Supreme Court in earlier cases.
Bhushan submitted that Section 17A suffers from a defect because it allows members of the executive, including ministers who may themselves be involved in the decision-making process, to decide whether an investigation should commence, creating a conflict of interest.