SC issues notice in challenge to Prevention of Corruption Act amendment

The Supreme Court today issued notice in a petition filed by the NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) challenging the amendments made to the Prevention of Corruption Act earlier this year..Under the amendment to the anti-graft law, a new Section 17A(1) was introduced, which states that no investigation can be initiated against any government official without prior sanction from the appointing authority..The petition came up for hearing before the Bench of Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Ajay Rastogi, which issued notice to the Centre..Filed through Advocates Prashant Bhushan and Rohit Singh, the petition states that a similar provision was held to be unconstitutional by the Apex Court earlier..The Supreme Court had in 2014 struck down Sections 6A(1) (a) and Section 6A(1) (b) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act) as unconstitutional. These sections provided for obtaining prior approval of the Central government for the conduct of any inquiry for any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) where the allegations have been made against officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above..The petition filed by CPIL states:.“This is the third attempt by the Union of India to introduce a provision which has already been twice held to be unconstitutional by this Hon’ble Court vide two separate judgments.”.Contending that the said amendment seeks to give impunity to corrupt officials and is violative of Fundamental Rights under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the petition prays for declaring the new amendment to be declared illegal and unconstitutional..The amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, notified in July this year seeks to introduce the following provision:.“17A. (1) No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval—.(a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government;.(b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government;. (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed:.Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person:.Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.’’.The Rajasthan government last year had introduced a similar amendment titled the Criminal Laws (Rajasthan Amendment) Ordinance, 2017. The Ordinance, passed in September last year, sought to amend sections 156(3) and 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby preventing Magistrates from directing investigations into present and retired judges and public servants without prior sanction of the government. The same came under challenge before the Rajasthan High Court.