Honest officers must be protected: SC on challenges to amend anti-graft Act

The Supreme Court said on Tuesday, August 5, 2025, in the Anti -Corruption Law, a provision that required sanctions before prosecution of public officials served to protect honest bureaucrats from being a victim of political blood after a regime change.

The 17A section of the Law on the Prevention of Corruption introduced in July 2018 prevents any “investigation or investigation or investigation against a public official for proposals made in the fulfillment of official duties without being approved in advance from the competent authority.

Justice KV Viswanathan, a part of a bench chaired by BV Nagarathna, said, Honest officers who do not establish the line after a change in the government will be protected. ”

The court felt a petition to the challenging section 17a, represented by lawyer Prashant Bhushan, which was held by the Attorney Praste Bhushan Center. Mr. Bhushan argued that the provision was injured by the Anti -Corruption Law, because the sanctions did not come from the government, which was often ‘competent authority’. Senior lawyer said the department has made the government a judge in his own case and should be shot.

Mr. Bhushan said that only 40% of the cases containing the Central Investigation Office (CBI) were previously received in the 17A section for the investigation. “States do not give sanctions,” he said. He proposed to give an independent organ to give in advance.

Stabble

However, the Council said, “Rather than throwing the baby out with bath water”, the court said that a balance would be shot.

Justice Viswanathan, “There are civil servants who give their lives and souls to the country.

Justice Nagarathna said the court could not approach the issue with a prejudiced idea that “all civil servants are honest or all of them are honest”.

“Honest officers should be protected while investigating. First, they should not make their work with a Damocles sword hanging on their heads. We should not shake their hands or take over the risk of full policy paralysis,” Justice Nagarathna observed.

The judge said that a provision cannot be kept bad in law, because its implementation may lead to abuse.

Justice Nagarathna said, “The implementation of a provision on the ground is quite different from the problem of the constitution. Ultimately, a balance needs to be done,” he said.

Attorney General Tushar Mehta and Additional Lawyer Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the Union government, said that anyone who is grudge against a public official can cancel against the authority without the shield of Chapter 17a.

Justice Viswanathan said that the sanction may not come from the government against the “blue -eyed boys and girls in the task, and Mr. Mehta said that this was true in three governance branches.

He said that such cases could be appealed for the case in the court. He urged the court not to legislated and hit the episode 17a. “HE [Bhushan] He cannot ask the Supreme Court to undertake legislative functions. ”

The court hidden the case for the trial.