Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. In that judgment, the Apex court went on to strike down Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 ("the DSPE Act", for short), a similar provision, on the ground that it was in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as it provided a layer of protection to only those public servants above a particular rank. Despite this ruling, the Legislature, nevertheless, has inserted Section 17A of the Act by way

- 16 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 of an amendment in the year 2018 and the same has been in the statute ever since.

27. In contradistinction to Section 6-A of the DSPE Act, which required the prior approval of the Union Government in respect of only a certain category of officers above the Joint Secretary to the Government, Section 17A of the Act requires the approval of the Government in respect of all its employees against whom an allegation of an offence punishable under the Act is made. In that sense, the reason, for which Section 6-A of the DSPE Act was struck down as infringing Article 14 of the Constitution, has been remedied by making prior approval for an investigation in respect of all the employees mandatory.

28. In fact, the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in R.R.Kishore2, which held that the decision in Subramanian Swamy (supra) declaring Section 6-A of the DSPE Act to be unconstitutional, would have CBI v. R.R. Kishore, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1146.

- 17 -

NC: 2023:KHC:35789 retrospective effect and that the impugned provision would be ineffective from the very date of its insertion, has narrated the historical background of the provisions relating to prior approval under Section 6-A of the DSPE Act and Section 17A of the PC Act in paragraphs 16 to 19 of its judgment. The relevant portion in paragraph 18 in relation to Section 17A of the Act for giving the correct perspective is extracted as under: