In a noteworthy development, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench declared on Monday that its 2014 verdict, which invalidated the requirement for investigative officials to obtain prior sanction to arrest corrupt public servants, would be applied retroactively. Furthermore, the top court categorically stated that section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was unconstitutional and deemed “not in force” since its inclusion on September 11, 2003.
The Landmark Decision
A Landmark Decision
This ruling carries significant implications as it removes the immunity previously enjoyed by Central government officials in corruption cases. The Supreme Court’s decision arrives seven years after it was referred to the Constitution Bench and holds particular relevance in the lead-up to the 2024 general elections.
Top 100 Books to read for Personal Development
The Bench and Its Verdict
The judgment was delivered by a distinguished Constitution Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari. Justice Nath formally pronounced the order in an open court session.
A Look Back at Section 6A
In 2003, the NDA government introduced Section 6A into the DSPE Act, 1946, through Section 26 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act (CVCA). The then Law Minister, Arun Jaitley, defended the law by asserting that officials in pivotal decision-making roles, exercising discretion, required protection from baseless allegations.
The Struck-Down Law
The now-invalidated law mandated that investigating agencies seek the Centre’s prior authorization before arresting corrupt central government officials holding the rank of joint secretary and above.
Central Government Officials does not have immunity
The 2014 Turning Point
However, the Supreme Court Constitution Bench, in the 2014 Subramanian Swamy case, struck down section 6A, asserting that “status or position” should not shield corrupt officials, especially those at the level of joint secretary and above, from unimpeded investigations in corruption cases. At that time, the top court pointed out that Section 6A was “discriminatory” and posed hindrances to the pursuit of corrupt senior bureaucrats.
The Court’s Observation
The court further elaborated that “the protection in Section 6A has the propensity of shielding the corrupt.” The bench, in its wisdom, highlighted that the law “suffers from the vice of classifying offenders differently for treatment thereunder for inquiry and investigation of offenses, according to their status in life.”
