Split Verdict on Section 17A

• 30 Jan 2026

Source: TH 

Why in News? 

A Supreme Court (SC) two-judge bench has delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, reigniting the core debate between insulating honest officials and ensuring unhindered corruption probes. 

What is the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988? 

• About PCA, 1988: PCA, 1988 is India's principal anti-corruption law, enacted on the Santhanam Committee's recommendations (1962-64).  
  • It broadly defines a "public servant" to include government employees, judges, and anyone performing a public duty, and it criminalizes offenses such as bribery, undue advantage, and criminal misconduct.  
  • The Act specifically provides punishment for these offenses committed by public servants in the discharge of their official functions. 
• Origin & Objective of Section 17A: Introduced via the 2018 amendment to the PCA, 1988, the section was enacted to create a "safe zone" for decision-making by protecting officers from investigation for decisions taken in good faith, thereby preventing 'play-it-safe syndrome' in the bureaucracy.  
  • Section 17A of the PCA, 1988 requires investigative agencies (like the CBI or police) to obtain prior approval from the concerned government authority before starting an inquiry or investigation into a public servant's official acts.  
  • Section 17A is distinct from Section 19 of the PCA, 1988, which mandates prior sanction from the appropriate government at the prosecution stage in a court of law. 
• Split Verdict: 
  • Justice K.V. Viswanathan (Upholding with Condition): Held that prior approval is necessary to shield honest officers from vexatious and frivolous complaints. However, its validity is conditional – approval must be based on a binding opinion from an independent authority (Lokpal for Centre, Lokayuktas for States), not the government itself. 
  • Justice B.V. Nagarathna (Striking Down): She declared Section 17A unconstitutional, calling it "old wine in a new bottle", and ruled that it violates Article 14 (Equality before law). She also emphasized that Section 19 already provides sufficient protection during the prosecution stage. 
• Legal Precedents:  
  • Vineet Narain vs Union of India (1998): The SC struck down the "Single Directive," an executive order requiring the CBI to obtain prior sanction of the designated authority before initiating investigation against certain categories of public servants.  
    • It ruled the directive created an arbitrary protected class and obstructed impartial probes, violating Article 14. 
  • Dr. Subramanian Swamy vs Director, CBI (2014): The SC struck down Section 6A of the DSPE Act, 1946, which mandated prior central government approval to investigate officers of Joint Secretary rank and above. It held the provision was an irrational classification and impeded independent investigation. 
• Systemic Reforms Highlighted: The discussion underscores the need for complementary measures i.e., swift disposal of corruption cases to act as a deterrent, and imposing penalties for false and malicious complaints to prevent abuse. 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

1. What is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 
Section 17A requires prior approval from the appropriate government before initiating an investigation into alleged offences by public servants related to official decisions. 

2. How does Section 17A differ from Section 19 of the PCA, 1988? 
Section 17A operates at the investigation stage, while Section 19 mandates prior sanction before prosecution in a court of law. 

3. Why was Section 17A introduced in 2018? 
It was introduced to prevent the ‘play-it-safe syndrome’ by shielding officers from vexatious investigations for decisions made in good faith. 

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs) 

Q1. With reference to the ‘Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 (PBPT Act)’, consider the following statements: (2017) 

1. A property transaction is not treated as a benami transaction if the owner of the property is not aware of the transaction. 
2. Properties held benami are liable for confiscation by the Government. 
3. The Act provides for three authorities for investigations but does not provide for any appellate mechanism. 

Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 

(a) 1 only 

(b) 2 only 

(c) 1 and 3 only 

(d) 2 and 3 only 

Ans: (b)