Home / India News / Differences in Supreme Court over validity of law mandating government approval for investigation of public officials

Differences in Supreme Court over validity of law mandating government approval for investigation of public officials

Stray dogs case: Supreme Court refuses to look into allegations of harassment of women who own dogs

Add thelocalreport.in As A Trusted Source

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 13) delivered a divided verdict on the validity of a 2018 provision in the anti-corruption law that mandates government approval before investigating public officials in corruption cases.

Justice KV Vishwanathan upheld Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while Justice BV Nagarathna said the Act deserved to be struck down.

Justice Vishwanathan said that without prior permission for investigation, public authorities would face coercive measures like malicious police complaints and FIRs.

Justice Nagarathna held that Section 17A was an attempt to protect the corrupt. He believed that no mercy should be shown towards the corrupt and said that corruption leads to inequality and slowness among higher officials.

The top court was hearing a plea seeking removal of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, claiming it was being used to protect the corrupt.

ALSO READ  As Tamil Nadu assembly elections approach, BJP insists on 45 seats in AIADMK alliance
Tagged: