Supreme Court Issues Split Verdict on Corruption Act Amendment

The Supreme Court has issued a split verdict regarding an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act, which mandates prior government approval for investigations against public officials. Justice BV Nagarathna deemed this requirement unconstitutional, while Justice KV Viswanathan supported it under specific conditions. The court's decision has sparked a debate on the balance between protecting public servants and ensuring accountability. This ruling follows a petition from a non-governmental organization, highlighting concerns over potential conflicts of interest in the approval process. The case will now be referred to the chief justice for further consideration, raising important questions about the future of anti-corruption measures in India.

By Narendra Chaudhary Jan 13, 2026, 12:21 IST

Split Decision on Corruption Act

A two-judge panel of the Supreme Court recently reached a divided conclusion regarding the constitutionality of an amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act. This amendment requires government approval before initiating investigations against public officials, as reported by a legal news outlet.

Justice BV Nagarathna declared that Section 17A of the Act violates constitutional principles. Conversely, Justice KV Viswanathan supported the provision but suggested it should be interpreted to require sanction based on recommendations from the Lokpal or Lokayukta, another legal source noted.

The Lokpal operates at the national level, while the Lokayukta functions at the state level, both serving as anti-corruption watchdogs.

Due to the differing opinions, the court instructed that the matter be referred to the chief justice, who may assign it to another bench for further deliberation.

This amendment, which mandates prior approval, was introduced in 2018. Previously, such consent was only necessary for investigations involving officials ranked above joint secretary.

Justice Nagarathna argued that the requirement for prior approval undermines the Act's purpose, stating, “This section is merely an attempt to revive a provision that was previously invalidated, thereby shielding corrupt individuals.”

In contrast, Justice Viswanathan emphasized that an independent body, free from executive influence, should determine whether to grant approval. He remarked that Section 17A remains constitutionally valid, provided that the sanction is contingent upon the Lokpal or Lokayukta's decision.

He cautioned that completely abolishing the provision would be akin to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” asserting that protecting honest public servants from baseless investigations is crucial to avoid “policy paralysis.”

The Supreme Court's split verdict was prompted by a petition from the Centre for Public Interest Litigation, a non-governmental organization.

Lawyer Prashant Bhushan, representing the NGO, argued that the prior approval requirement reinstates protections that the Supreme Court had previously invalidated in notable cases, including Vineet Narain vs Union of India and Subramaniam Swamy vs Director, CBI.

Bhushan contended that Section 17A suffers from similar issues, as it allows executive members to determine whether an inquiry can proceed, creating a conflict of interest.

On the other hand, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union government, countered that earlier rulings do not prohibit all forms of prior approval. He maintained that the Vineet Narain and Subramaniam Swamy cases focused on reasonable classification under Article 14, which addresses equality rights.

Mehta asserted that Section 17A is designed to safeguard official decision-making and to prevent frivolous cases that could hinder effective governance.