On 13 January 2026, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice K.V. Viswanathan, delivered a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The case, Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2026 INSC 55), challenged the 2018 provision that requires prior approval of the government before any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence linked to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions.
What was decided
Justice Viswanathan upheld Section 17A, subject to safeguards. In his view, the question of approval should depend on the recommendation of the Lokpal (or the Lokayukta for States), which would bind the approving authority, and where the Lokpal lacks jurisdiction an independent body should screen the information. He cautioned that removing the protection altogether could lead to policy paralysis among honest decision-makers.
Justice Nagarathna would have struck the provision down. She held that it creates an unreasonable classification under Article 14, revives in another form the “Single Directive” and Section 6A of the DSPE Act that the Court had earlier invalidated, and bars even a preliminary enquiry without approval. She also held that the word “Government” cannot be read as “Lokpal” or “Lokayukta”.
Because the judges differed, the Registry was directed to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate larger bench.
Why it matters
Until a larger bench decides, Section 17A remains on the statute book and continues to operate. Agencies such as the CBI, UP Vigilance Establishment and state anti-corruption units still need prior approval where the allegation relates to an official recommendation or decision. Whether that approval was sought, from whom, and within what time remains a live ground of challenge in pending cases.
For officers in the Central and UP governments, and for those in public life dealing with them, the split also signals that the scope of the protection may change. Later rulings (including on bribe-demand cases) have already narrowed where Section 17A applies.
Practical points
- Check whether the allegation actually concerns a recommendation or decision taken in official functions; that is the trigger for Section 17A.
- Ask whether approval was sought and granted by the authority competent to remove the officer at the time of the alleged act.
- Keep records of file notings and the decision trail; they matter both for approval and for the defence on merits.
- Track the larger bench reference, as its outcome may affect pending enquiries and challenges.
Sources: Verdictum, 14 January 2026; ETV Bharat, 13 January 2026.
For a confidential discussion on Section 17A approval and corruption investigations, see Prevention of Corruption Act, CBI and vigilance matters.
General legal information only; not legal advice or solicitation.
