UPSC Mains Current Affairs for 15 January 2026

Section 17a Latest News

• A two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
  • Given the divergent views, the case has been referred to the Chief Justice of India to constitute a larger bench for final adjudication.
• Inserted in 2018, the provision requires prior government approval before police can initiate enquiries or investigations against public servants for decisions taken in official duties.
• The judgment underscores a long-standing tension in administrative law — striking a balance between empowering agencies to act decisively against corruption and protecting honest civil servants from undue harassment.

Addressing Policy Paralysis in Governance

• Section 17A was introduced to prevent “policy paralysis” by protecting civil servants from investigative harassment over bona fide decisions. 
• The concern was that fear of probes could deter officials from taking bold, necessary policy decisions.

Protecting the ‘Steel Frame’ of India

• Justice K V Viswanathan underscored the need for such protection, invoking Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s description of civil servants as the “Steel Frame of India.” 
• He warned that without safeguards, honest officers would adopt a risk-averse “play-it-safe” approach, ultimately harming national interests.

The Constitutional Flaw in Section 17A

• Justice Viswanathan acknowledged a key defect in the provision: the authority to grant or deny approval for investigations rests with the government itself, undermining the independence essential for corruption inquiries.
• To preserve the provision’s constitutionality, Justice Viswanathan adopted a “constructive approach.” 
• He upheld the requirement of prior approval but ruled that decision-making must not be confined to the government alone. 
• Instead, complaints must be independently screened by the Lokpal at the Centre and Lokayuktas in the States.

How the Proposed Mechanism Works

• Under this framework, when police seek approval to investigate, the government must forward the request to the Lokpal. 
• The Lokpal’s Inquiry Wing conducts a preliminary assessment, and if a prima facie case is found, the government is obliged to grant approval.
• This ensures independent scrutiny of corruption allegations while retaining necessary protection for honest public servants, thereby balancing administrative efficiency with accountability.

Section 17A as a Shield for the Corrupt

• Justice B V Nagarathna held that Section 17A is contrary to the very objective of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 
• She argued that by blocking enquiries at the threshold, the provision effectively protects corrupt officials rather than safeguarding honest ones.

Conflict of Interest in Government Approval

• She rejected the assumption that the government can act as an impartial authority in granting approval for investigations. 
• She highlighted the risks of policy bias and conflict of interest, especially where allegations involve senior officials or ministers, making impartial decision-making by subordinate officers unrealistic.

Violation of the Right to Equality

• She found Section 17A violative of Article 14, as it grants protection only to officials involved in “recommendations or decisions.” 
• This, she said, unfairly discriminates against lower-level officials who perform clerical functions or record file notings and are denied similar safeguards.

Rejection of Judicial Reconstruction

• Justice Nagarathna strongly disagreed with Justice Viswanathan’s effort to save the provision by routing approvals through the Lokpal. 
• She termed this “judicial legislation,” asserting that courts cannot rewrite statutes by replacing “Government” with “Lokpal.”

‘Cart Before the Horse’ Argument

• She dismissed the government’s claim that Section 17A acts as a gatekeeper against frivolous complaints. 
• Without a preliminary police enquiry, she argued, it is impossible to assess whether allegations are genuine or baseless.

A Tool of Control Over Officials

• Justice Nagarathna warned that Section 17A enables the government to wield a “Damocles’ sword” over public servants, pressuring them to conform to political interests under the threat of investigation approvals being selectively granted.

Divergent Readings of Supreme Court Precedents

• A key disagreement in the split verdict centred on how to interpret two landmark rulings of the Supreme Court of India: Vineet Narain v. Union of India and Subramanian Swamy v. CBI. 
• Both judgments had struck down prior approval requirements that restricted corruption investigations.

Justice Nagarathna: Section 17A as a Revival of Invalid Law

• Justice B V Nagarathna viewed Section 17A as “old wine in a new bottle,” arguing that it resurrects protections earlier invalidated. 
• She relied on Subramanian Swamy Case, where the Court held that any fetter on even a preliminary enquiry undermines the investigation process. 
• In her view, Section 17A creates the same barrier—now extended to all public servants—and therefore suffers from the same constitutional infirmity.

Justice Viswanathan: Distinguishing the Earlier Rulings

• Justice K V Viswanathan took a different approach, distinguishing Section 17A from the provisions struck down earlier. 
• He noted that Subramanian Swamy invalidated Section 6A of the DSPE Act mainly because it discriminated between officers based on rank, violating equality under the Constitution. 
• Since Section 17A applies uniformly to all public servants, he argued that this defect does not arise.
• Justice Viswanathan further reasoned that the core principle of Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy was preventing executive control over investigations. 
• By routing prior approval through an independent body like the Lokpal, he argued, Section 17A addresses this concern and meets constitutional requirements.

The Crux of the Disagreement

• Thus, while Justice Nagarathna saw Section 17A as fundamentally incompatible with binding precedent, Justice Viswanathan believed that institutional redesign—through independent screening—was sufficient to reconcile the provision with earlier Supreme Court rulings.

Source: IE | BW | ToI