In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [2026 INSC 55], the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict regarding the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), which was introduced by the 2018 amendment.
Section 17A mandates that a police officer cannot initiate any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant regarding decisions made in the discharge of their official functions without prior approval from the competent Central or State Government authority.
The two-judge bench expressed divergent views on the provision as follows:
Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that Section 17A is unconstitutional and should be struck down entirely. She observed that the provision is an attempt to “protect the corrupt” and resurrect legal hurdles previously struck down by the Supreme Court in the Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy judgments. Justice Nagarathna emphasized that requiring prior sanction is contrary to the object of the PC Act, as it forecloses legitimate inquiries and shields dishonest officials rather than protecting those with integrity.
Justice K.V. Viswanathan, on the other hand, upheld the constitutional validity of the section but “read it down” to ensure its independence. He ruled that the decision to grant sanction must not rest with the executive; instead, it must be decided by an independent body—the Lokpal at the Center or the Lokayukta in the States.
Due to this divergence of opinion, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate larger bench to resolve the issue.
