Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. Subsequently, in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India : AIR 2014 SC 2140, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that Section 6A(1) of the DSPE Act, which required approval of the Central Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act, 1988 where such allegation related to (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Government, is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

38. The issue involved can be considered also from another angle. The requirement of seeking previous approval pre-supposes that the offence under the Act allegedly committed by the public servant is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by him in discharge of his official functions or duties.

39. In Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 : AIR 2012 SC 1185, it was observed as follows:

"Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. The magnitude of corruption in our public life is incompatible with the concept of a socialist, secular democratic republic. It cannot be disputed that where corruption begins all rights end. Corruption devalues human rights, chokes development and undermines justice, liberty, equality, fraternity which are the core values in our preambular vision. Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. .... These protections are not available to other citizens. Public servants are treated as a special class of persons enjoying the said protection so that they can perform their duties without fear and favour and without threats of malicious prosecution. However, the said protection against malicious prosecution which was extended in public interest cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials. These provisions being exceptions to the equality provision of Article 14 are analogous to provisions of protective discrimination and these protections must be construed very narrowly. These procedural provisions relating to sanction must be construed in such a manner as to advance the causes of honesty and justice and good governance as opposed to escalation of corruption."

(emphasis supplied)

40. As held in Dr. Subramanian Swamy (supra), a provision like Section 17A in an anti-corruption law has to be interpreted in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. Where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption than the one which seeks to perpetuate it.

41. In Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab: AIR 2007 SC 1274, it has been held as follows: