Supreme Court Split Verdict: The Controversial Fate of Section 17A

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Justice BV Nagarathna found it unconstitutional, while Justice KV Viswanathan deemed it valid with conditions. A larger bench will now review the issue for a final decision.

In a pivotal ruling on Tuesday, the Supreme Court issued a split verdict regarding the constitutional standing of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The disputed provision, which stipulates the necessity of prior sanction for probing public servants in corruption cases, has sparked diverse opinions among the justices.

Justice BV Nagarathna declared Section 17A unconstitutional, arguing it contradicts the core intent of the Act by obstructing investigations and inadvertently shielding the corrupt. In contrast, Justice KV Viswanathan defended its validity, insisting it safeguards honest officers while ensuring corrupt officials face justice, provided the Lok Pal or Lokayukta grants the necessary sanction.

The case will proceed to a larger bench for further examination under Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. The verdict emerged from a public interest litigation filed by the NGO 'Centre for Public Interest Litigation', challenging the amendment's integrity and efficacy, with notable legal representatives advocating on both sides.