What is ‘prior approval’, and why is it needed before investigating public officials accused of corruption?

Key Highlights

Dissenting Opinions on 'Previous Approval' Requirement

• 2 judges hold differing views on whether the Andhra Pradesh CID needed 'previous approval' from the state government before initiating an inquiry into the allegations against Naidu.

Justice Bose's Perspective

• Asserts that prior approval was necessary for the CID's inquiry.
• Points out the absence of approval during the inquiry initiation.

Justice Trivedi's Perspective

• Argues that approval is required only for offences committed post-2018, when the requirement was introduced.

Evolution of 'Previous Approval' Requirement

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act Amendment (2003)

• Required approval for investigating corruption offenses if the official held a rank higher than joint secretary.
• Struck down by the Supreme Court in 2014.

Prevention of Corruption Act Amendment (2018)

• Introduced a similar 'previous approval' provision as Section 17A.
• Approval required for investigations involving public servants committing offenses during official duties.

Challenge to the Provision by CPIL (2018)

• Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL)
• Challenges constitutionality, arguing it hinders investigations and protects corrupt officials.
• Refers to a 2014 case where a similar requirement was struck down.

SC's Previous Stance on Retroactive Application

Constitution Bench Decision (2023)

• Officials cannot claim immunity under Section 6A retrospectively, even for offenses predating its removal (CBI v R R Kishore).

Rakesh Asthana Case (2018-2022)

• Former Delhi Police Commissioner investigated for bribery.
• Opinion against prior approval by Additional Solicitor General P S Narasimha.
• Case adjourned and declared infructuous after Asthana's retirement in 2022.

Prelims Takeaway

• Centre for Public Interest Litigation
• CBI v R R Kishore