Context

The Supreme Court recently heard a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case centers on balancing the need to protect honest public servants from harassment while ensuring effective accountability in corruption investigations.

What is Section 17A?

Introduced through the 2018 amendment, Section 17A mandates that no police inquiry or investigation into a public servant’s official conduct can proceed without prior approval from the competent authority (Central or State Government).

• Purpose: To protect honest officers from frivolous probes and prevent policy paralysis due to fear of prosecution.
• Criticism: The requirement for prior sanction often causes delays or denial of approval, hindering timely corruption investigations.

Key Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

• Challenge to Section 17A: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) argued that:
  • The provision stifles anti-corruption investigations by placing investigation approval in the hands of governments, who effectively judge their own officers.
  • Sanctions at the state level are frequently denied or delayed, blocking probe initiation.
  • The deletion of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) (related to abuse of official position) weakens the scope of the anti-corruption law.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• The Court noted that many objections stemmed from implementation issues rather than the constitutional validity of the law.
• It emphasized that shielding honest officers from unwarranted prosecution is crucial to prevent policy paralysis.
• A balance must be struck between protecting honest public servants and allowing corruption probes to proceed efficiently.

Concerns with Section 17A

• The prior sanction requirement causes significant delays in investigations, weakening deterrence against corruption.
• Judicial powers to intervene immediately are limited unless the provision itself is struck down as unconstitutional.
• There is no impartial, transparent, or time-bound mechanism currently in place to process sanction requests, raising questions about fairness and objectivity.

Recommendations from Committees

• Rajya Sabha Select Committee (2016):
  • Highlighted that sanction requirements for all levels undermine grassroots anti-corruption efforts and public trust.
  • Suggested restricting sanction to senior officials and streamlining the approval process.
• Santhanam Committee (1962):
  • Recommended creating the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to independently review sanction requests and oversee investigations through agencies such as the CBI.

Way Forward

• Time-Bound Sanction: Implement mandatory timelines for granting or denying prior sanction under Section 17A to avoid undue delays.
• Judicial Oversight: Empower courts to review arbitrary refusals or delays in sanction approvals, reinforcing checks and balances in the anti-corruption framework.

Source: The Hindu