SC delivers split verdict on validity of PC Act provision mandating prior sanction to probe govt official
The verdict came on a PIL filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenging the validity of Section 17A of the Act introduced through an amendment in 2018
The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates a prior approval from the competent authority to launch a probe against a government official.
A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Vishwanathan – which had reserved its verdict on the contentious issue on August 6, 2025 – penned separate dissenting verdicts.
Terming it an attempt to “protect the corrupt”, Justice Nagarathna held that no prior sanction was needed from the competent authority to probe a government official while Justice Vishwanathan chose to uphold the provision even as he read it down.
“Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by us, we direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh,” the bench directed.
The verdict came on a PIL filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenging the validity of Section 17A of the Act introduced through an amendment in 2018. The petitioner had contended that the requirement of prior approval for investigating a public servant reintroduced a protection that had already been struck down by the Supreme Court in Vineet Narain v Union of India and Dr Subramaniam Swamy v Director, CBI, wherein the top court.
Justice Viswanathan said the Lokpal/Lokayuta should decide if a government official should be prosecuted or not. “Section 17A has no vice of invalid classification. The possibility of abuse is no ground to strike down Section 17A,” he pronounced.
Judge Vishwanathan concluded that an independent agency free from the Executive must decide the issue of prior sanction.
“Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 inserted by virtue of Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is constitutionally valid, subject to the condition that grant or refusal of the approval by the competent authority mentioned therein will depend on the recommendation of the Lokpal/Lokayukta (in case of States) respectively...,” Justice Viswanathan wrote.
“Here is a case where Parliament in all its wisdom stepped in and engrafted a mechanism in the form of enacting Section 17A to give impetus to decision making by the administrative machinery so that “policy paralysis” does not set in. The concern was that if it were not so, fearing that carefully built reputations could be casually tarnished, a “play it safe syndrome” may set in and decision making will be avoided, causing serious detriment to the progress of the nation,” he wrote.
Justice Viswanathan said, “For an honest person, personal integrity and reputation is priceless and is valued even higher than life. With the extent of public gaze prevalent today, propelled by social media, arrest and the consequential parading in court, of an honest person itself causes incalculable harm to the fair name and goodwill of the individual and the family.
“Even a subsequent exoneration in the investigation cannot redeem the permanent damage done to the integrity and reputation of the individual. It is no answer to say that protection is available at the stage of Section 19 when the file seeking sanction for prosecution is processed, for by then irreversible and immeasurable harm would have ensued,” he said.
However, Justice Nagarathna disagreed with him. “In my view, prior approval being required for the purpose of protecting honest officers is not a valid reason for saving the provision from being declared unconstitutional as a regime of prior approval at the stage of inquiry/enquiry/investigation is fundamentally opposed to the objects and purpose of the Act and hence has to be struck down on that ground also,” she wrote.
Declaring the impugned provision invalid, Justice Nagarathna said, “Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. 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.”
