Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh [Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 1041: (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 666] this Court held as under: (SCC p. 100, para 68) "68. Today, corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, but 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, and 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." (emphasis supplied)
as judicial exercises, the corrupt public servants could even paralyse the functioning of such institutions and thereby hinder the democratic polity." (emphasis supplied)
30. While approving the judgment of Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 :
(2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36], rendered by another Constitution Bench in Manoj Narula case [Manoj Narula v. Union of India, (2014) 9 SCC 1], a Constitution Bench of this Court, dealing with rampant corruption, observed as under : (SCC pp.

26-27, paras 17-18) "17. Recently, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI [Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 42 :

(2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36], the Constitution Bench, speaking through R.M. Lodha, C.J., while declaring Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, which was inserted by Act 45 of 2003, as unconstitutional, has opined that : (SCC pp. 725-26, para 59) '59. It seems to us that the classification which is made in Section 6-A on the basis of status in the government service is not permissible under Article 14, as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth in the allegations of graft, which amount to an offence under the PC Act, 1988. Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power.