Supreme Court Examines Screening Process in Corruption Probes Against Public Servants

General Studies Paper-2

Context

• the Supreme Court heard a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, balancing protection of honest officers and ensuring accountability in corruption probes.

What is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

• Introduced via the 2018 Amendment, Section 17A prohibits any police inquiry or investigation into public servants without prior approval from the competent authority (Central or State Government) if the act was done in the discharge of official duties.
• It aims to shield honest officials from harassment and prevent policy paralysis due to fear of prosecution.
  • However, critics argue it creates hurdles in timely action against corruption, as prior approvals are often delayed or denied.

Key Issues Raised in the Supreme Court

• Challenge to Section 17A:The petition by Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), argued that;
  • The provision cripples anti-corruption investigations.
  • Governments, being the competent authority, are essentially judging their own officers, compromising impartiality.
  • In many cases, especially at the state level, sanctions are not granted, blocking investigation.
• The deletion of Section 13(1)(d)(ii) (abuse of position) is criticised as diluting the anti-corruption law’s scope.

Supreme Court Observation

• Constitutionality vs. Implementation: The Court observed that many concerns raised were more about implementation flaws, not the constitutional validity of the provisions.
• It warned that fear of prosecution would lead to policy paralysis, and emphasised the necessity of shielding honest officers from frivolous proceedings.
• The Court highlighted a need to strike a balance between protecting honest officials and enabling corruption probes.

What are the concerns?

• The requirement of prior sanction under Section 17A causes significant delays in initiating corruption investigations, thereby reducing the deterrent effect of the anti-corruption law.
• The separation of powers limits the judiciary scope for immediate corrective action, unless the provision is found to be unconstitutional.
• The current framework lacks an impartial and time-bound mechanism for granting sanctions, raising concerns about transparency and the objectivity of the decision-making process.

Various Committee Recommendations

• Rajya Sabha Select Committee (2016)highlighted that requiring government sanction for every investigation is difficult at the grassroots, undermining public trust and emboldening corruption.
  • It suggested limiting the sanction mechanism to senior officials, not minor ranks, and streamlining approvals
• The Santhanam Committee (1962)recommended establishment of the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) to independently review sanction requests and direct investigations through agencies like the CBI.

Way Ahead

• Time-Bound Sanction Process: Introduce a mandatory timeline for granting or denying sanction under Section 17A to prevent undue delays in initiating investigations.
• Judicial Safeguards: Empower courts to review arbitrary refusals or delays in granting sanctions, thereby reinforcing checks and balances within the anti-corruption framework.