Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Section 17A Of Prevention Of Corruption Act, Refers Issue To Larger Bench

Mumbai/New Delhi:

The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), a provision introduced through the 2018 amendment that requires prior government approval before initiating an investigation against a public servant for decisions taken in the course of official duties.

The two-judge bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, differed sharply in their views on whether the provision violates constitutional principles. Owing to the divergence of opinion, the matter has now been referred to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate larger bench to settle the issue.

What Section 17A Provides

Section 17A stipulates that no police officer shall conduct any inquiry, inquiry or investigation into alleged corruption by a public servant related to official decisions or recommendations without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority of the Central or State government.

The provision was introduced with the stated objective of protecting honest public servants from frivolous or vexatious complaints that could hamper governance and decision-making.

Justice Nagarathna: Provision ‘Protects the Corrupt’

Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that Section 17A is unconstitutional and must be struck down. In her judgment, she observed that the requirement of prior sanction effectively obstructs corruption inquiries at the threshold stage and undermines the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Calling the provision an attempt to revive legal protections that had already been invalidated by earlier Supreme Court rulings, Justice Nagarathna said Section 17A contradicted the object of the anti-corruption law.

She referred to landmark judgments such as Vineet Narain v. Union of India and Dr. Subramaniam Swamy v. Director, CBI, in which the Court had struck down provisions requiring prior approval for investigating senior public servants. According to her, the present provision similarly forecloses inquiry and shields wrongdoing rather than safeguarding integrity.

Justice Nagarathna stated that honest officers do not require such statutory protection, while corrupt officials stand to benefit from procedural barriers that delay or prevent investigation.

Justice Viswanathan: Section 17A Constitutionally Valid With Safeguards

Justice K.V. Viswanathan took a contrasting view, holding that Section 17A is constitutionally valid, subject to an important limitation. He read down the provision to mandate that the decision on granting sanction must be taken not by the executive, but by an independent authority such as the Lokpal or the Lokayukta.

Justice Viswanathan cautioned against striking down the provision entirely, warning that doing so would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.” He emphasised that without safeguards against frivolous complaints, public servants may become risk-averse, leading to policy paralysis.

He further observed that the mere possibility of abuse cannot be a ground to invalidate a law, and that Section 17A does not suffer from unconstitutional classification under Article 14. According to him, eliminating the provision would also create a structural imbalance, as complaints routed through the Lokpal would face scrutiny while police-initiated complaints would not.

Centre For Public Interest Litigation Challenge

The verdict arose from a writ petition filed by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) challenging the constitutional validity of amendments made to the PC Act in 2018, with Section 17A being the principal target of challenge. The Court had reserved its judgment on August 6, 2025.

Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for the petitioner, argued that Section 17A reinstates executive control over corruption investigations, creating an inherent conflict of interest where members of the executive could block probes into decisions in which they may themselves be involved.

Bhushan contended that sufficient safeguards already exist within the PC Act, including provisions restricting the rank of officers authorised to investigate and requiring sanction at the prosecution stage. He suggested that alternative safeguards such as a preliminary inquiry, under judicial or Lokpal oversight, would be constitutionally preferable.

Union Government’s Defence

Opposing the challenge, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that earlier Supreme Court judgments did not prohibit all forms of prior approval. He submitted that Section 17A is narrowly tailored and applies only to decisions taken in official capacity, aiming to protect bona fide decision-making.

The Solicitor General relied on earlier precedents, including Matajog Dobey v. H.C. Bhari, to argue that statutory screening mechanisms are constitutionally permissible. He also informed the Court that detailed procedures are followed while granting approvals, and where ministers are involved, sanction is granted by the Governor or the President under established rules.

What Happens Next

With the bench divided, the constitutional fate of Section 17A will now be decided by a larger bench of the Supreme Court. The ruling is expected to have far-reaching implications for anti-corruption investigations, governance, and the balance between administrative protection and public accountability.