Overview
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna struck down Section 17A as unconstitutional, calling the prior-approval requirement a barrier that protects the corrupt.
- Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the provision but read it down so that sanction decisions rest with independent ombudsmen like the Lokpal or state Lokayuktas.
- The two-judge bench referred the case to Chief Justice Surya Kant to form a larger bench, leaving the law’s fate pending.
- Section 17A, added in 2018, bars any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into official decisions by public servants without prior approval, with an exception for on-the-spot bribery arrests and a 3+1 month decision timeline.
- The challenge by CPIL, argued by Prashant Bhushan, cited earlier Supreme Court precedents in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy, while the Union government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, defended the clause as a safeguard against frivolous complaints and policy paralysis.