The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the controversial section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which says prior approval is required for investigating public servants in the discharge of their official functions and duties.
While Justice B V Nagarathna ruled it was unconstitutional and “protects the corrupt”, Justice K V Viswanathan held it as valid, provided the sanction is decided by the Lokpal or Lokayukta.
The provision was introduced in the Act by way of an amendment in 2018 and was challenged before the Supreme Court by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation.
Noting that it was “unconstitutional and…ought to be struck down”, Justice Nagarathna said, “No prior approval is required to be taken. This provision is an attempt to resurrect what has been earlier struck down in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy judgments. The requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act, and it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest and those with integrity who really do not require any protection.”
Seeking to differ, Justice Viswanathan said, “Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lok Ayukta of the State.” He added that “Section 17A has no vice of invalid classification” and “the possibility of abuse is no ground to strike down Section 17A.”
“If Section 17A is struck down, complaints routed through Lok Pal will face screening and complaints routed through police will not face screening. This will create a dichotomy and structural imbalances,” Justice Viswanathan said.
The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment in the matter on August 6, 2025.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act says that “no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval” of the centre or state as the case may be.
Editorial Context & Insight
Original analysis and synthesis with multi-source verification
Methodology
This article includes original analysis and synthesis from our editorial team, cross-referenced with multiple primary sources to ensure depth, accuracy, and balanced perspective. All claims are fact-checked and verified before publication.
Primary Source
Verified Source
The Indian Express
Editorial Team
Senior Editor
Shiv Shakti Mishra
Specializes in India coverage
Quality Assurance
Senior Reviewer
Fact-checking and editorial standards compliance
