ON JANUARY 13, 2025, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (‘PCA) a provision that requires prior governmental approval before investigating corruption allegations against public servants when such offenses relate to official recommendations or decisions made in the discharge of their duties.
This provision, inserted through the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, became the focal point of intense constitutional scrutiny, with the petitioner arguing that it represents nothing less than the “third incarnation” of unconstitutional protections that the Court had already struck down twice before in landmark judgments.
What is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Section 17A of the PCA mandates that no police officer shall conduct any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into any offense alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Act where the alleged offense is related to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant while discharging official functions or duties, unless the police have obtained previous approval from specified authorities.
The provision carefully delineates the approval authorities based on the nature of employment. For persons employed in connection with the affairs of the Union at the time the offense was alleged to have been committed, approval must come from the Union Government. For those employed in connection with the affairs of a State, the State Government must grant approval. For any other person, the authority competent to remove such a person from office at the time of the alleged offense holds the power of approval.
