The observations were made during the hearing of a plea filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), a non-profit organization. The CPIL has challenged the 2018 amendments made to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
KEY AMENDMENTS CHALLENGED
Section 17A: Bars police from investigating decisions made by public servants in discharge of official duties without prior approval from the Central or State government.
Repeal of Section 13(1)(d): This provision earlier criminalized the abuse of official position by public servants to secure personal gains or benefits for others, even without a direct bribe.
ADVOCATE PRASHANT BHUSHAN: “A RECIPE FOR DISASTER”
Appearing for CPIL, Advocate Prashant Bhushan argued that the changes are unconstitutional and violate earlier Supreme Court judgments, including that of a Constitution Bench.
He criticized Section 17A, stating:
“But if this section stays, then no sanction will ever be granted. Government cannot be entrusted with this… If the government is entrusted with this, it will be a recipe for disaster.”
Bhushan acknowledged the need to protect honest officers but cautioned against giving the government unchecked discretion. He suggested that the Court could lay down guidelines to ensure that honest officers are safeguarded without enabling impunity.
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE: “SECTION 17A PREVENTS POLICY PARALYSIS”
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, defended the amendments, arguing that they were introduced after intense parliamentary debate.
“Section 17A is very narrowly tailored, and it is made so effective that no one escapes, and at the same time, honest officers are not afraid,” he said.
Mehta emphasized that good governance and the rule of law go hand in hand.
“When we held three organs under the constitution, the rule of law is attached to all organs. Independence of the judiciary is part of the rule of law, and so is good governance.”
SUPREME COURT QUERIES SANCTIONING PROCESS
The Bench questioned what materials are reviewed by the sanctioning authority before allowing an investigation into a public servant. In response, Mehta stated that:
“The authority considers the decision taken, the file and the allegations.”
WHAT’S NEXT?
The hearing in this critical constitutional matter will continue on August 6, 2025.
The Solicitor General (SG) of India, Tushar Mehta, had assured the Court that the Union Territory status of Jammu and Kashmir is temporary.
The Court recorded Mehta’s statement that “statehood will be restored to the region.
