<p class="bodytext">With the Supreme Court delivering a split verdict on the powers of investigating agencies to probe public servants, the uncertainty over the matter is likely to continue for years. Article 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, introduced along with other amendments in 2018, made a sanction from the government mandatory for such probes. The agency is required to obtain approval from the Union or the state government, or the relevant authority to conduct an inquiry about charges of corruption. Justice B V Nagarathna of the two-judge bench held that the Article was unconstitutional; Justice K V Vishwanathan upheld it, while calling for an independent authority, such as the Lokpal or the Lokayukta, to issue the approval for the investigation. The case will now go to a larger bench.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in its original form, investigation agencies could register a crime involving a public servant and initiate a probe. The government’s approval was needed only before a charge sheet was filed. The 2018 amendment took away this power from the agencies, making the government’s permission imperative. Under the amendments, even reporting of corruption cases by citizens was made more difficult. Provisions to address some of the specific offences, such as the misuse of official position, were excluded. It was claimed that the amendments would bolster the fight against corruption. They were also projected as a cover for proactive officials from action under the law. But the overall impact of the amendments has left the law diluted.</p>.Committee constituted by D K Shivakumar on campus polls invites public opinion .<p class="bodytext">Justice Nagarathna described the introduction of Section 17A as an attempt to resurrect an earlier provision of the law which was struck down by the Supreme Court. She said the Section had inherent deficiencies that made its provisions arbitrary and that its claimed objective of protecting honest officers cannot override the law’s primary objective, which is preventing corruption. It should also be noted that Justice Vishwanathan, even while upholding the Section, wanted the probe to be sanctioned not by the government, but by an independent authority. The provision can be used to shield corrupt officers by delaying the investigation. Furthermore, the competent authority which has to approve the investigation is often part of the system to which the accused individual belongs. Justice Nagarathna’s view that Section 17A allows the government to pressurise officials to conform to its interests also has merit. The split verdict is set to steer the narratives around probity in public life and the extent of enforcement – a resolution in court appears distant.</p>
<p class="bodytext">With the Supreme Court delivering a split verdict on the powers of investigating agencies to probe public servants, the uncertainty over the matter is likely to continue for years. Article 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, introduced along with other amendments in 2018, made a sanction from the government mandatory for such probes. The agency is required to obtain approval from the Union or the state government, or the relevant authority to conduct an inquiry about charges of corruption. Justice B V Nagarathna of the two-judge bench held that the Article was unconstitutional; Justice K V Vishwanathan upheld it, while calling for an independent authority, such as the Lokpal or the Lokayukta, to issue the approval for the investigation. The case will now go to a larger bench.</p>.<p class="bodytext">Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, in its original form, investigation agencies could register a crime involving a public servant and initiate a probe. The government’s approval was needed only before a charge sheet was filed. The 2018 amendment took away this power from the agencies, making the government’s permission imperative. Under the amendments, even reporting of corruption cases by citizens was made more difficult. Provisions to address some of the specific offences, such as the misuse of official position, were excluded. It was claimed that the amendments would bolster the fight against corruption. They were also projected as a cover for proactive officials from action under the law. But the overall impact of the amendments has left the law diluted.</p>.Committee constituted by D K Shivakumar on campus polls invites public opinion .<p class="bodytext">Justice Nagarathna described the introduction of Section 17A as an attempt to resurrect an earlier provision of the law which was struck down by the Supreme Court. She said the Section had inherent deficiencies that made its provisions arbitrary and that its claimed objective of protecting honest officers cannot override the law’s primary objective, which is preventing corruption. It should also be noted that Justice Vishwanathan, even while upholding the Section, wanted the probe to be sanctioned not by the government, but by an independent authority. The provision can be used to shield corrupt officers by delaying the investigation. Furthermore, the competent authority which has to approve the investigation is often part of the system to which the accused individual belongs. Justice Nagarathna’s view that Section 17A allows the government to pressurise officials to conform to its interests also has merit. The split verdict is set to steer the narratives around probity in public life and the extent of enforcement – a resolution in court appears distant.</p>
