Lawyers outside the Supreme Court of India. File | Photo Credit: Deepika Rajesh
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (August 5, 2025) said that there is a provision in an anti-corruption law, which makes the pre-approval mandatory before prosecution of public servants, working to save honest bureaucrats from being a victim of political vengeance after a change of governance.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, launched in July 2018, bars any “investigation or investigation” against a public servant for recommendations made in the discharge of official duties without prior approval from the competent authority.
Justice KV Vishwanathan, headed by Justice BV Nagrathana, said, “Honest officers who do not line up in government will be preserved.”
The court was hearing a petition filed by the Non-profit organization Center for public interest litigation, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan, which challenges Section 17A. Mr. Bhushan argued that the provisions cripped the anti -corruption law as the ban was usually not upcoming from the government, who were ‘competent authority’. The senior advocate said that the block made the government a judge for his reason, and should be killed.
Mr. Bhushan presented that only 40% of cases, which are incorporating the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), received prior approval under Section 17A for investigation. “State is not approving,” he presented. He suggested the power of prior approval to an independent body.
strike a balance
However, the bench stated that “instead of” throwing the child out with bath water “, the court will investigate whether a balance can be killed.
Justice Vishwanathan said, “There are officers who give their life and soul to the country. How do we ensure that they are not victims of trivial prosecution for the recommendations made in their official functions or duties.”
Justice Nagrathana commented that the court could not contact with a prior perception on the issue that “all officers were dishonest or all were honest”.
“Honest officers should be preserved while dishonest people should be investigated. East should not do their work with a democlas sword hanging on their heads. Their hands should not shake before taking the official decision or we will run a risk of complete policy paralysis,” said Justice Nagrathana.
The judge said that a provision cannot be spoiled in the law as its implementation may be misused.
The Justice said, “The implementation of a provision on the ground is quite different from the question of its constitutionalism. Ultimately, a balance has to be created.”
The central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, said that without a shield of Section 17A, any person against a public servant can rope in an NGO to register cases against the officer in the NGO.
When Justice Vishwanathan said that the government could not be officially approved against “blue -eyed boys and girls”, Mr. Mehta replied that it was true in all three branches of governance.
He said that such cases can be challenged in the court on the basis of case-to-case. He urged the court not to reduce Section 17A. The apex law officer presented, “He (Bhushan) cannot ask the Supreme Court to handle legislative functions.”
The court reserved the case for the verdict.
Published – August 06, 2025 03:50 AM IST