Supreme Court Split Verdict Stirs Debate on Anti-Graft Law Amendment

The Supreme Court issued a split verdict regarding the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior sanction before probing a government servant. The division between Justices Nagarathna and Viswanathan highlights differing opinions on protecting honest officers versus facilitating corruption inquiries.

The Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on Tuesday concerning the controversial Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This provision, introduced in 2018, mandates prior approval before initiating investigations against government officials in corruption cases.

Justice BV Nagarathna declared Section 17A unconstitutional, arguing it prevents necessary inquiries and inadvertently safeguards corrupt officials. In contrast, Justice KV Viswanathan defended the provision, emphasizing its role in protecting honest officers from frivolous investigations.

The matter will be forwarded to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant to form a larger bench for a final resolution. This decision arose from a PIL filed by the NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation', challenging the 2018 amendment.

(With inputs from agencies.)