17A: PROTECTS CORRUPT BABUS? OR PURGES POLICY PARALYSIS?

THE Supreme Court’s recent split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) has raised questions about the robustness of India’s primary legislative framework for anti-corruption.

- TK VINEETH @Kochi

The section, which mandates prior government approval before investigating public servants for corruption allegations, was partially read down and upheld as constitutional by Justice K V Viswanathan while it was struck down by Justice B V Nagarathna. The case will now go toa larger bench.

Anti-graft laws in India

Public servants in India can be penalised for corruption under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988. The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 prohibits benami transactions linked to corruption. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 also penalises public servants for the offence of money laundering. The Prevention of Corruption Act was enacted to streamline all legislation pertaining to such offences committed by public servants.

Section 17A

Section 17A of the PCA bars investigative agencies from probing public servants without prior approval from the government. The section was introduced in July 2018 through an amendment to the Act. It bars the police from conducting any inquiry without prior approval of the competent authority (Central government, state government, or the authority empowered to remove him/her from office). The only exception is cases involving arrest on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept a bribe.

The section was brought in to protect public servants from harassment through frivolous complaints, creating a statutory filter to screen complaints before any full-fledged investigation can be launched. This way, it also ensures that investigations are conducted with proper oversight. Critics argue that such a precondition effectively makes investigations against senior officials a nonstarter, while the government claims such provisions are essential to protect honest officers and prevent ‘policy paralysis’.

The petition