SC divided on nod for graft investigation against officials

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 —a provision inserted through the 2018 amendments mandating prior government approval before initiating any inquiry or investigation against public servants for decisions taken in the discharge of official duties.

- Utkarsh Anand

A bench comprising justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan differed on whether the provision could withstand constitutional scrutiny, with Justice Nagarathna striking it down as unconstitutional, while Justice Viswanathan upheld it subject to safeguards. In view of the divergence, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger bench.

The verdict came in a petition by nonprofit Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), challenging the alleged dilution of the anti-corruption framework through the 2018 amendments to the PC Act. The bench had reserved its judgment on August 6, 2025, after extensive arguments from the Union government and the petitioners.

In her opinion, Justice Nagarathna held that Section 17A is contrary to binding precedents of the Supreme Court and impermissibly stifles corruption inquiries at the threshold. She ruled that the provision violates earlier judgments of the apex court, including Vineet Narain Vs Union of India (1997) and Subramanian Swamy Vs Director, CBI (2014), which emphasised the need for independent and unhindered investigation into allegations of corruption involving public servants.

Justice Nagarathna found that mandating prior approval even before the initiation of an inquiry undermines the rule of law and enables the executive to exercise control over investigative agencies in a manner previously disapproved by the court.