SC delivers split verdict on Section 17A of PC Act mandating sanction to probe govt servants
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday 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 while 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 judgement came on a PIL filed by NGO '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.
ALSO READ: Snag hits Akasa Air Pune-Bengaluru flight ahead of departure; airline deplanes passengers
"Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken... 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 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 Surya Kant for forming a larger bench to hear the matter 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.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC refuses to entertain PIL seeking removal of Savarkar portraits, warns of costs
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to entertain a PIL seeking the removal of portraits of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar from Parliament and other public spaces, warning the petitioner of exemplary costs before allowing the plea to be withdrawn.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi cautioned the petitioner, retired Indian Revenue Service (IRS) officer B Balamurugan, against filing what it described as a frivolous petition and indicated that heavy costs could be imposed for wasting the court’s time.
"This kind of frivolous petition… shows the mindset," the CJI said.
The bench was irked by the petitioner's submission that he could not come to argue the case in person because of financial constraints.
ALSO READ: Centre asks Blinkit, Zepto, Swiggy to stop 10-minute delivery claims: sources
"You were in the IRS. You can afford to come to Delhi and show yourself and argue. We would like to impose exemplary costs on you. What do you think of yourself?” the CJI said.
Balamurugan, in his PIL (public interest litigation), sought directions for the removal of portraits of the historical figure from the Central Hall of Parliament and other public spaces.
Additionally, the plea sought a direction to restrain the government from honouring individuals chargesheeted for heinous crimes such as assassination or anti-national activities unless they are acquitted.
During the hearing, the CJI questioned the petitioner’s background and service record, including his last posting before retirement and the circumstances under which he was denied promotions.
Asked whether he faced corruption charges, Balamurugan replied in the negative, stating instead that he had faced departmental action after undertaking a hunger strike in 2009 for “peace in Sri Lanka”.
Calling the petition an abuse of the judicial process, the bench asked the petitioner whether he wished to proceed or withdraw the case.
“Please don’t indulge in all this. Enjoy your retirement now. Have some constructive role in society,” the CJI remarked.
Sensing the outcome, Balamurugan sought permission to withdraw the petition, which was granted.
