New Delhi, January 13, 2026 – The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, a provision introduced through the 2018 amendments that mandates prior government approval before initiating any inquiry or investigation against public servants for decisions made in the discharge of their official duties. The ruling, which came in a batch of petitions challenging the dilution of India’s anti-corruption framework, has significant implications for the balance between executive oversight and independent investigation into allegations of corruption.

A two-judge bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan differed on whether Section 17A could withstand constitutional scrutiny. Justice Nagarathna struck down the provision as unconstitutional, while Justice Viswanathan upheld it with safeguards to prevent misuse. Given the divergence of opinion, the matter will now be referred to the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger bench, which will definitively examine the legality of the provision.

The petitions, led by the Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL), contend that the 2018 amendments undermine the core purpose of the PC Act by allowing the executive to control the initiation of corruption investigations. The bench had reserved its judgment on August 6, 2025, following extensive arguments from the Union government and the petitioners.

Justice Nagarathna’s Opinion: Striking Down Section 17A

Justice Nagarathna, in her opinion, held that Section 17A is contrary to binding Supreme Court precedents and impermissibly stifles the investigation of corruption at its threshold. She noted that the provision undermines earlier judgments such as Vineet Narain vs Union of India (1997) and Subramanian Swamy vs Director, CBI (2014), which had emphasised the importance of independent and unhindered inquiry into allegations of corruption involving public servants.

According to Justice Nagarathna, mandating prior approval even before an inquiry begins effectively enables the executive to exercise control over investigative agencies, a practice that the apex court has consistently disapproved of. She ruled that the provision violates the principles of rule of law, transparency, and accountability, creating a potential shield for public servants against legitimate scrutiny.

“The sanction requirement, as currently framed, stifles investigative independence and places a bottleneck at the very inception of anti-corruption probes,” Justice Nagarathna observed. She argued that Section 17A effectively allows the political executive to decide whether allegations against public servants can even be examined, thereby weakening the anti-corruption framework.

Justice Viswanathan’s Opinion: Upholding Section 17A with Safeguards

Justice Viswanathan took a different view, holding that Section 17A need not be struck down if it is applied in a manner consistent with constitutional principles. He suggested that the complaints against public servants could be routed to constitutional and statutory oversight bodies, such as the Lokpal or Lokayuktas, for preliminary scrutiny. This approach, he observed, could safeguard against both frivolous complaints and undue executive interference.

While acknowledging concerns regarding potential misuse of the sanction requirement, Justice Viswanathan emphasised that the provision’s objective of protecting honest officers from vexatious complaints cannot be ignored. He noted that careful application through independent bodies could harmonise the provision with anti-corruption goals, balancing accountability with protection for public servants.

“The provision, if applied with oversight from independent institutions rather than being solely at the discretion of the executive, can protect officials from harassment while maintaining the integrity of corruption investigations,” Justice Viswanathan stated.

Implications of the Split Verdict

The split verdict highlights the complexity of balancing executive control with the need for independent investigations into corruption. Section 17A, which has been under challenge since its insertion in 2018, extended protection from inquiry or investigation without prior approval to all serving and retired public servants, provided the alleged offence relates to recommendations or decisions taken in an official capacity.

The provision removed the earlier distinction between senior and junior officials that existed under Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which the Supreme Court had struck down in 2014. Section 17A bars the police from conducting any inquiry without prior sanction from the competent authority, except in cases of immediate arrests for accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage.

The CPIL petition argues that the amendment undermines the anti-corruption law by allowing the executive to decide, at the threshold, whether allegations against public servants can even be examined. It also challenges the repeal of Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which previously criminalised abuse of official position for undue advantage even without the element of a bribe.

Government’s Stand on Sanction Requirements

Successive Union governments have defended sanction requirements as essential to prevent “policy paralysis” and protect honest officers from malicious or politically motivated complaints. According to the government, unrestricted investigative powers could lead to harassment of officials and impede decision-making in sensitive areas of governance.

However, critics argue that sanction provisions create a mechanism for impunity and selective enforcement, allowing officials to evade accountability. Legal experts note that the debate over Section 17A touches upon fundamental issues of separation of powers, executive control, and the independence of investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

Next Steps: Referral to a Larger Bench

In light of the split verdict, the matter will now be placed before the Chief Justice of India for the constitution of a larger bench. This bench, comprising three or more judges, will provide an authoritative examination of the constitutional validity of Section 17A and establish clear guidelines on its application.

The larger bench will need to address key questions, including whether prior approval can coexist with independent investigations, how oversight mechanisms such as the Lokpal or Lokayuktas can be integrated, and the extent to which the executive can be involved in granting sanctions without undermining anti-corruption objectives.

Historical Context and Legal Framework

Section 17A was introduced on July 26, 2018, as part of the amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act. Prior to its insertion, senior officials were granted certain protections from investigation, while junior officers were subject to fewer restrictions. The amendment aimed to standardise protections across all public servants but has faced persistent criticism for diluting investigative independence.

The Supreme Court, in previous landmark judgments such as Vineet Narain vs Union of India and Subramanian Swamy vs Director, CBI, has repeatedly emphasised the need for free and unhindered investigation into corruption cases involving public servants. The ongoing legal scrutiny of Section 17A reflects the judiciary’s concern over maintaining the delicate balance between safeguarding honest officials and preventing misuse of office.

Conclusion

Tuesday’s split verdict has left the final word on Section 17A pending before a larger bench of the Supreme Court. Justice Nagarathna’s opinion striking down the provision highlights concerns about executive overreach and the stifling of independent investigations, while Justice Viswanathan’s opinion provides a pathway for its continued application with safeguards.

The larger bench’s ruling will have far-reaching implications for India’s anti-corruption framework, affecting how investigations against public servants are initiated and the role of executive approval in such cases. Until then, the legal community, policymakers, and public servants await a definitive resolution on the balance between accountability, transparency, and protection from frivolous complaints.