CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION v. UNION OF INDIA
Split Verdict on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act: Prior Approval for Investigation and Constitutional Validity.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 55
Decision Date: 13-01-2026
List of Laws
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018; The Constitution of India; The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946; The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The General Clauses Act, 1897; United Nations Convention Against Corruption
- Facts: A writ petition was filed challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior approval for investigating offences relatable to recommendations or decisions made by public servants in discharge of their official duties. The petitioner argued that this provision is an attempt to reintroduce provisions already struck down by the Court and violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Union of India defended the provision, arguing it protects honest public servants from harassment and is a valid exercise of legislative power.
- Procedural Posture: The case originated as a writ petition (C) No. 1373 of 2018 in the Supreme Court of India under its civil original jurisdiction. The divergent opinions of the two judges hearing the matter led to the case being referred to the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to consider the issues afresh.
- Issue: Is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior approval for investigating offences relatable to recommendations or decisions made by public servants in discharge of their official duties, constitutionally valid?
- Holding: The two-judge bench delivered a split verdict. One judge upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17A, subject to the condition that the grant or refusal of approval by the competent authority would depend on the recommendation of the Lokpal/Lokayukta. The other judge held Section 17A to be unconstitutional, finding it contrary to the object of the Act and violative of Article 14.
- Reasoning: One judge reasoned that Section 17A aims to protect honest public servants from harassment and that the requirement of prior approval is a reasonable restriction. The judge read down the provision to require the competent authority to be guided by the recommendations of the Lokpal/Lokayukta, thus ensuring an independent screening mechanism. The other judge dissented, arguing that Section 17A is a disguised attempt to reintroduce provisions struck down in previous cases and that it creates an impermissible classification by protecting only certain public servants. This judge also found that the provision lacks sufficient safeguards against bias and undermines the independence of investigating agencies.
🔒 For Members Only