A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan differed sharply on the matter. Justice Nagarathna declared Section 17A unconstitutional, emphasizing that no prior permission should be necessary to probe allegations of corruption against government officials. “Public servants must be accountable, and delays in obtaining approvals undermine the anti-corruption framework,” she noted.
Contrarily, Justice Viswanathan upheld the provision, cautioning against a blanket repeal. He remarked that removing the safeguard entirely could be more detrimental than beneficial, particularly if approvals were channelled through oversight bodies such as the Lokpal or State Lokayuktas. “We must avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” he stated, highlighting the importance of procedural checks to prevent misuse.
The case was referred to the Chief Justice of India, Suryakant, who will constitute a larger bench to deliver the final verdict on the contentious provision.
The litigation originated from a public interest petition filed by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL). Senior advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing the petitioner, argued that Section 17A weakens anti-corruption measures, as government approvals for investigations are frequently delayed or denied, thereby impeding accountability. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, defended the provision as a necessary safeguard to maintain procedural balance and prevent frivolous allegations against public servants.
Experts suggest that the final outcome could significantly influence India’s anti-corruption landscape. If struck down, agencies such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and State Vigilance Commissions may be empowered to investigate without prior clearance, potentially accelerating corruption probes. Conversely, upholding the provision could reinforce checks designed to prevent politically motivated investigations.
Legal analysts observe that the Supreme Court’s split decision underscores the delicate balance between transparency and procedural safeguards in India’s governance framework. The matter is expected to attract nationwide attention when the larger bench delivers its ruling.
