Supreme Court to Hear Plea Against PMLA Amendment Mandating Prior Approval to Probe Govt Officials for Graft
Supreme Court to Hear Plea Against PMLA Amendment Mandating Prior Approval to Probe Govt Officials for Graft
The Supreme Court has agreed to list for early hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the anti-graft law which mandates prior sanction for initiating a probe against a Govt official in a corruption case.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices P S Narasimha and Manoj Misra took note of the submissions of Advocate Prashant Bhushan who urged that the PIL must be listed for hearing as the notice was issued way back on 26 November, 2018.
The CJI said, “I will advance the date of hearing."
The Apex Court after issuing notice on the PIL in 2018, had asked the Centre on 15 February, 2019 to file its reply within four days and after that the plea had not been listed before a bench.
The bench headed by then CJI Ranjan Gogoi had said that the NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation’ (CPIL), which had filed the PIL, can file its rejoinder within a week after the Centre files its response.
The petitioner’s challenged the validity of amended section 17A (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The plea contended the amended provision makes prior sanction of appointing authority essential to launch investigation against government servants in corruption cases.
It was further alleged that the amended section curtailed investigation against corrupt officials at the threshold and it was the third attempt by the government to introduce a provision which had already been held unconstitutional twice by the Supreme Court.
The plea stated that according to the amended Act, prior sanction for inquiry or investigation is required only where the alleged offence by a public servant is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties.
“It would be extremely difficult for the police to determine whether a complaint about an alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant, especially as even an enquiry cannot be made without prior sanction,” the plea read.
Moreover, the discretion to determine whether or not an alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant could become a matter of litigation and would impede time-bound action on cases of corruption, the plea highlighted.
In this regard the plea stated, “The impugned amendments have rendered the PC Act almost ineffective by completely diluting the scope of some of the original provisions, by deleting some of the earlier offences and also by introducing new provision, which in effect would protect corrupt officials and exponentially increase level of corruption.”
According to the petitioners, by obtaining prior sanction to commence investigation not only seized the element of confidentiality and surprise but also introduced a period of delay during which vital evidence can be manipulated or destroyed and grants time to the accused to lobby by employing various means for denial of permission.
