The recent judgment by the Supreme Court has declared that the 2014 verdict, which annulled Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, will apply retrospectively from 2003, the year the provision was introduced. This decision holds significant implications for corruption investigations involving senior officials.
Section 6A was a provision that mandated obtaining approval from the Central government before launching any investigation into corruption allegations against officials of the rank of Joint Secretary or higher. It was designed to restore the Centre's 'Single Directive,' which outlined the procedural framework for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiries.
The introduction of Section 6A aimed to reinstate the 'Single Directive,' which had been invalidated by the Supreme Court in the 1997 Vineet Narain case. The court had ruled against the interference of administrative instructions in statutory investigations.
In 2014, the Supreme Court struck down Section 6A, asserting that it violated the principle of equality by selectively safeguarding a particular category of public servants, thus not being universally applicable.
This recent ruling reaffirms the notion that post-Constitution laws must align with constitutional principles. If deemed inconsistent by the court, their invalidation is effective from their inception. This implies that individuals facing investigations for offenses prior to the 2014 judgment cannot claim protection under Section 6A.
The judgment chiefly affects allegations from 2003 to 2014. In 2018, the Prevention of Corruption Act was amended, introducing Section 17A, which requires government approval before initiating probes into a public servant's decisions or recommendations.
The 2014 judgment highlighted concerns that provisions demanding prior approval for anti-corruption investigations could hinder the objectives of such laws. It noted the potential for these provisions to prematurely alert involved officials, while recognizing the necessity for safeguards against baseless inquiries. The emphasis was on ensuring these measures do not protect unethical individuals.
The Supreme Court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining the constitutional balance while safeguarding the integrity of anti-corruption investigations, ensuring that laws protect the public interest without shielding misconduct.
Kutos : AI Assistant!
