Overview
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna declared Section 17A unconstitutional, saying the prior-approval requirement forecloses inquiry and shields the corrupt.
- Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the provision but read it down so that sanction decisions rest with independent bodies such as the Lokpal or Lokayukta.
- Section 17A, added in 2018, requires prior approval before any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into decisions or recommendations by public servants, with a three‑month decision timeline extendable by one month and an exception for on‑the‑spot bribe arrests.
- The challenge was brought by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation represented by Prashant Bhushan, while the Union, led by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the law as a safeguard against frivolous complaints and policy paralysis.
- Both opinions engaged with earlier Supreme Court precedents, including Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy, underscoring the broader stakes for anti‑corruption investigations and executive oversight of probes.