Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 13 January 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 55
The Judges differed on Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Viswanathan J. upheld it subject to Lokpal or Lokayukta screening, Nagarathna J. held it unconstitutional, and the matter was directed to be placed before the Chief Justice.
Facts
The petitioner, Centre for Public Interest Litigation, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, inserted by Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 with effect from 26.07.2018. Section 17A bars a police officer from conducting any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence by a public servant relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official duties, without previous approval of the Government or the authority competent to remove him. Earlier, the Single Directive 4.7(3) had been struck down in Vineet Narain and Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 in Subramanian Swamy. A challenge to Section 7 of the Amendment Act was given up. The Solicitor General produced a 2021 Standard Operating Procedure for processing Section 17A cases.
Questions before the Court
- Is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, introduced with effect from 26.07.2018, constitutionally valid?
- Does Section 17A revive what was struck down in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy?
- Can the approving authority in Section 17A be read as the Lokpal or Lokayukta to save the provision?
What the Court held
- Viswanathan J. held Section 17A constitutionally valid, subject to the condition that grant or refusal of approval depends on the reasoned recommendation of the Lokpal or Lokayukta, to whom the Government or competent authority must immediately forward the information and by whose recommendation it is bound; the time limit in the proviso applies.
- Viswanathan J. reasoned that protecting bona fide decisions is a valid object, that Section 17A, unlike Section 6A, makes no invalid classification, that possible abuse is no ground for invalidity, and that striking it down would cause policy paralysis; by reading down, it is aligned with Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy.
- Viswanathan J. directed that for bodies outside the Lokpal's jurisdiction the competent authority must commission an independent investigative agency to screen the information and act on its recommendation; for the judiciary, Veeraswami and U.P. Judicial Officers Association already provide a mechanism.
- Nagarathna J. held Section 17A unconstitutional: it violates Article 14 by protecting only a class of public servants, it reintroduces the Single Directive and Section 6A struck down in binding decisions, it is arbitrary in forbidding even a bare enquiry without approval, and it is contrary to the objects of the Act.
- Nagarathna J. held that the words "Government" and "authority competent to remove him from his office" cannot be substituted by "Lokpal" or "Lokayukta", as that would be judicial legislation, and that shifting the approving authority does not remove the unconstitutionality.
- By the Order of the Court, in view of the divergent opinions, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench to consider the issues afresh. The Court as such did not decide the validity of Section 17A.
Why it matters
The two opinions give opposite answers on whether a prior approval requirement for investigating public servants can survive Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy: one saves Section 17A by reading in independent screening by the Lokpal or Lokayukta, the other strikes it down and rejects that reading as impermissible substitution. The Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench to consider the issues afresh.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 inserted by virtue of Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is constitutionally valid, subject to the condition that grant or refusal of the approval by the competent authority mentioned therein will depend on the recommendation of the Lokpal/Lokayukta (in case of States) respectively in accordance with the reasoning set out in the body of the judgment.”
“I have perused the judgment authored by my learned Brother K.V. Viswanathan, J. I wish to author a separate opinion by holding that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) is contrary to the objects of the said Act and unconstitutional and hence ought to be struck down.”
“The expressions “Government” and “of the authority competent to remove him from his office” in Section 17A of the Act cannot be substituted, in light of no persisting ambiguity, absurdity or alternative meanings ascribable by any other expression as this would be an instance of judicial legislation. In fact, intentionally, the aforesaid expressions are used in order to ensure that no other independent body would have any say in the matter.”
“Having regard to the divergent opinions expressed by us, we direct the Registry to place this matter before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench to consider the issues which arise in this matter afresh.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 17A, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Article 14, Constitution
- Section 6A, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
Related judgments
- Follows Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)“in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy, which are three-Judge and five-Judge Bench decisions of this Court respectively and are binding on this Bench” (page 266)
- Follows Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI (2014)“in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy, which are three-Judge and five-Judge Bench decisions of this Court respectively and are binding on this Bench” (page 266)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (C) No. 1373 of 2018
- Decided
- 13 January 2026
- Bench
- B.V. Nagarathna, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J.
- Opinions
- Split verdict of a two-Judge Bench. K.V. Viswanathan, J. upheld Section 17A subject to conditions and disposed of the petition with directions; B.V. Nagarathna, J. struck it down and allowed the petition; by an Order of the Court both Judges referred the matter to the Chief Justice of India.