Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

RESERVED ON : 2nd DECEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd APRIL 2026 JUDGMENT [Per : RANJITSINHA RAJA BHONSALE, J.] :-

1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the parties.
2) The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy V. Director, C.B.I reported in (2014) 8 SCC 682, taking very serious note of the level of corruption prevailing in the country and the objects of enacting the Prevention of Corruption Act, has observed as under:
81.........In the supplementing judgment, A.K. Ganguly, J. while concurring with the main judgment delivered by G.S. Singhvi, J. observed: (Subramanian Swamy case22 , SCC p. 100, para 68) "68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of the 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."

66. As held in Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh 48, in case of two possible constructions of a provision in the PC Act, it would be the duty of the court to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it. In Subramanian Swamy v. CBI49, the Constitution Bench had observed while dealing with Section 19 of the PC Act that the protection against malicious prosecution which is extended in public interest, cannot become a shield to protect corrupt officials.