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 recommendations made or decision taken 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.
Justice Nagarathna’s Decision
Justice B.V. Nagarathna held that Section 17A is unconstitutional and should be struck down entirely.
She observed that while the patent purpose of the provision is for the purpose of protecting honest public servants and preventing them from being subject to unjustified, frivolous, and vexatious investigations, the latent object is that Section 17A should function as a shield that, in fact, protects the dishonest public servants. Blockading any form of enquiry or investigation at the very outset by making the same conditional on grant of approval results in corrupt officers receiving undue protection.
Justice Nagarathna emphasized that requiring prior sanction is contrary to the object of the PC Act. It forestalls an enquiry and thereby in substance protects the corrupt, who really do not require any such protection.
She added 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 v. Union of India [AIR 1998 SC 889], and Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI [AIR 2014 SC 2140] judgments.
Justice Nagarathna concluded that Section 17A, by placing a barrier at the very inception of the investigative process, undermines India’s commitments to combating corruption and therefore cannot be sustained under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Viswanathan’s Opinion in the Verdict
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.
The Judgement Referred to for Larger Bench Decision
In view of the divergence of opinion, the matter has been referred to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of an appropriate larger bench to settle the issue.
