Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI
Supreme Court of India, 6 May 2014, 5 judges
The Constitution Bench struck down Section 6-A(1) of the DSPE Act, which required Central Government approval before the CBI could inquire into or investigate PC Act offences by officers of Joint Secretary level and above, as violating Article 14.
Facts
In Vineet Narain the Supreme Court had struck down Single Directive 4.7(3)(i), an executive instruction requiring the prior approval of the Central Government before the CBI could proceed against senior officers. Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 then inserted Section 6-A into the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. It barred the CBI from conducting any inquiry or investigation into offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Central Government employees of Joint Secretary level and above, and officers appointed by the Central Government in its corporations, companies, societies and local authorities, without the Central Government's previous approval; trap cases were excepted. Two writ petitions under Article 32 challenged the provision. On 4 February 2005 a Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench, noting the dispute whether arbitrariness is a ground to strike down legislation and an alleged conflict between Vineet Narain and K. Veeraswami.
Questions before the Court
- Is the classification in Section 6-A(1) of the DSPE Act, based on the status of public servants, valid under Article 14?
- Can breach of the rule of law be a ground for invalidating legislation as a negation of equality under Article 14?
- Is the conclusion in para 34 of Vineet Narain inconsistent with para 28 of the Constitution Bench decision in K. Veeraswami?
What the Court held
- Classifying public servants by status for inquiry or investigation into PC Act offences is not permissible under Article 14. Corrupt public servants, high or low, must face the same process; the differentia has no rational relation to the object of the PC Act, and the object of Section 6-A is itself discriminatory.
- Section 6-A replicates the Single Directive struck down in Vineet Narain, whose reasoning applies equally. It blocks even a preliminary enquiry, forewarns suspects and lets the very group under suspicion decide whether the CBI may start. It also protects Central officers but not officers of the same level in the States.
- Rule of law is a facet of equality under Article 14, and breach of the rule of law may be a ground for invalidating legislation. A fair, untainted investigation that influential persons cannot hijack is such a facet, and Section 6-A fails it.
- The 2011 office memorandum on time limits does not save the provision, P. Sirajuddin does not support a status-based distinction, and Section 6-A cannot be severed to survive for Section 13(1)(d)(ii) and (iii) of the PC Act.
- K. Veeraswami is confined to Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court and has no application to the officers covered by Section 6-A, so para 34 of Vineet Narain is not inconsistent with it.
- Section 6-A(1) is invalid and violative of Article 14, and Section 26(c) of Act 45 of 2003 is invalid to that extent. The writ petitions were allowed.
Why it matters
The judgment invalidates a statutory requirement of prior Government approval for CBI inquiry or investigation into corruption by senior Central Government officers, holding that status cannot be the basis for different investigative treatment of accused public servants. It applies the reasoning of Vineet Narain to a statute, treats breach of the rule of law as a ground for invalidating legislation under Article 14, and confines K. Veeraswami to superior court Judges.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“It seems to us that classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the Government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power.”
“Criminal justice system mandates that any investigation into the crime should be fair, in accordance with law and should not be tainted. It is equally important that interested or influential persons are not able to misdirect or highjack the investigation so as to throttle a fair investigation resulting in the offenders escaping the punitive course of law. These are important facets of rule of law. Breach of rule of law, in our opinion, amounts to negation of equality under Article 14. Section 6-A fails in the context of these facets of Article 14.”
“A simple physical grouping which separates one category from the other without any rational basis is not a sound or intelligible differentia. The separation or segregation must have a systematic relation and rational basis and the object of such segregation must not be discriminatory. Every public servant against whom there is reasonable suspicion of commission of crime or there are allegations of an offence under the PC Act, 1988 has to be treated equally and similarly under the law. Any distinction made between them on the basis of their status or position in service for the purposes of inquiry / investigation is nothing but an artificial one and offends Article 14.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 6-A, Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
- Section 26(c), Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003
- Article 14, Constitution
Related judgments
- Follows Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1997)“We are in agreement with the above observation in Vineet Narain1, which, in our opinion, equally applies to Section 6-A.” (page 47)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation; with Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 38 of 1997 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 21 of 2004
- Decided
- 6 May 2014
- Bench
- R.M. Lodha, CJI, A.K. Patnaik, J., Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J., Dipak Misra, J., Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
- Opinions
- Unanimous. A single judgment of the Constitution Bench written by R.M. Lodha, CJI, and signed by all five judges.
Questions on this case
7 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.