Corruption is a moral cancer: Justice Nagarathna

Justice BV Nagarathna struck down Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, describing corruption as a “cancerous growth” corroding moral standards and governmental administration, and calling upon the youth and children of India to reject wealth acquired beyond known sources of income.

Her opinion penned a broader reflection on societal decay, as Justice Nagarathna traced the rise of corruption to unchecked greed, envy and ostentatious displays of wealth. She warned that the “mad race of becoming rich overnight” and the glorification of material superiority have distorted values and normalised illegal accumulation of assets. Such tendencies, she said, must be curbed not merely through law but by inculcating ethical restraint and a spirit of service to the nation.

In an unusual exhortation, the judge observed that children and young citizens should refuse to benefit from illicit wealth amassed by parents or guardians. “The youth and the children of this country ought to shun anything acquired beyond the known sources of income by their parents and guardians rather than being beneficiaries of the same. This would be of a seminal service rendered by them not only towards good governance but also to the Nation,” she said.

Turning to the legal challenge, Justice Nagarathna held that Section 17A, introduced in 2018 to mandate prior government approval before even initiating inquiry or investigation against public servants, is unconstitutional, dissenting from the other judge on the bench –– Justice KV Viswanathan. She found that the provision violates Article 14 (equality) by selectively shielding only those officials who make policy recommendations or decisions, while exposing other public servants to immediate investigation.

Drawing heavily from binding precedents, the judge held that Section 17A is a reincarnation of the “Single Directive” and Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, both of which had been struck down by Constitution and larger benches of the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain (1997) and Subramanian Swamy (2014). Parliament, she said, cannot reintroduce an unconstitutional mechanism “in a different form” to bypass settled law.

Justice Nagarathna rejected the argument that prior approval is necessary to protect honest officers. In her view, such protection at the inquiry stage is fundamentally opposed to the object of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, which seeks to detect and deter wrongdoing. Honest officers, she said, do not require such shielding, while corrupt officials stand to benefit from delayed or blocked investigations.

She also declined to accept the suggestion that substituting the government with the Lokpal or Lokayukta as the approving authority could cure the defect. Such an exercise, she held, would amount to judicial legislation, especially when Parliament had consciously vested the power in the executive.

The judge was particularly critical of the manner in which approvals are granted within government departments, highlighting risks of policy bias, institutional conflict of interest, lack of neutrality, and collective decision-making that obscures individual accountability.

Ultimately, Justice Nagarathna concluded that Section 17A forestalls inquiry, protects the corrupt, undermines the rule of law and defeats the very purpose of the anti-corruption statute, warranting its complete invalidation.