Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(c) to (h) ……..

(2) ………”

18. The constitutional validity of Section 6A is pending before the Constitution Bench of this Court. In Subramanian Swamy (Dr.)[7], a three- Judge Bench of this Court referred the matter to the larger bench to authoritatively adjudicate the validity of Section 6A. The challenge is based on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution as it is the case of the petitioner therein that Section 6A is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The contention of the Union on the other hand is that arbitrariness and unreasonableness are not available as grounds to invalidate the legislation. Since the question of validity of Section 6A is pending before the Constitution Bench of this Court, we make it clear that this order does not touch upon this aspect at all.

19. We have heard Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General, Mr. Amarendra Sharan, learned senior counsel for the CBI, Mr. Manohar Lal Sharma, petitioner-in-person, Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel in the writ petition filed by Common Cause and Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, learned counsel for the intervenor.

20. Mr. Goolam E. Vahanvati, learned Attorney General says ‘Yes’ to the question which we have indicated in the beginning of the order because he says that the whole idea behind Section 6A is to provide a screening mechanism to filter out frivolous or motivated investigation that could be initiated against senior officers and to protect them from harassment and to enable them to take decisions without fear. He heavily relies on the decision of this Court in K. Veeraswami4 and submits that the Court has recognised the need for protecting high-ranking officials from vexatious litigation. Learned Attorney General fairly submits that the observations made by this Court in paragraph 28 in K. Veeraswami4 have been distinguished in Vineet Narain1 but he submits that the observations in Vineet Narain1 have been doubted in the referral order in Subramanian Swamy (Dr.)7 .

62. In Vineet Narain1, this Court clarified that the decision in K. Veeraswami4 has no application to the officers covered by the single directive. In other words, the observations made by this Court in K. Veeraswami4 were held to be confined to the Judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court who are constitutional functionaries and their position being distinct and different from the government officers.

63. The referral order in Subramanian Swamy (Dr.)7 , records the argument advanced on behalf of the Central Government that the view in Vineet Narain1 with regard to the observations in K. Veeraswami4 case was not correct but, in our view, recording the contention of the Central Government in the referral order and the pendency of constitutionality of Section 6A before the Constitution Bench do not mean that what has been said in Vineet Narain1 about the observations in paragraph 28 of K. Veeraswami4 stand obliterated.

31. With regard to the time factor for taking a decision, as proposed by the learned Attorney-General it is worth referring to Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Dr. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64 wherein this Court noted in paragraph 17 of the Report as follows:-

“During the course of hearing, the learned Attorney General filed written submissions. After the hearing concluded, the learned Attorney General filed supplementary written submissions along with a compilation of 126 cases in which the sanction for prosecution is awaited for periods ranging for more than one year to a few months.”