New Delhi, the Center on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that a provision of the Graft Act, which compulsory approval to initiate an investigation against government officials in corruption cases, was the attempt of the legislature for “fearless governance”.
The government informed a bench of Justice Biwi Nagarthana and KV Vishwanathan that “fearless good governance” was also “a very original part of any constitutional rule”.
The bench then reserved its decision on an argument, which challenges the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the prevention of corruption, which mandates prior approval to initiate an inquiry against government officials in corruption cases.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said, “17A, the way this couch is done, another restrictive manner is another attempt by the Legislature that honest officers are not punished to ensure fearless governance and dishonest officers do not go to Scott-free.”
The bench inquired about the number of corruption complaints received since the implementation of the amended section 17A of the Act in 2018.
Mehta said that he can give data of complaints received by CBI.
He said that 60 percent of the complaints were approved.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who was present for the petitioner NGO Center for public interest literature, said, “So in the last six years, he says that 2,395 complaints came for preliminary investigation or investigation.”
“He says of these, he rejected 989 references, approximately 41 percent, and approved 1,406 references,” Bhushan said.
Mehta said that either orders were passed during either approval or refusal.
He said that eventually, these orders may be the subject of judicial inquiry and the aggrieved party can always challenge it.
Mehta said, “Now, on the present day of this aggressive activism, if I can use that expression, the moment the complainant is denied, the complainant comes with RTI. He comes with documents and immediately challenges the non-offering of approval in the court,” said Mehta.
He said that the authorities were very careful in either approval or refusal to approve.
The bench also heard Bhushan’s joy.
Mehta said, “Probably, he will now take your Lordship to fulfill some guidelines,
Bhushan said that a preliminary investigation on a complaint would reveal whether there was any substance in it.
“Why should they be exposed to such harassment?” The bench asked.
It also indicated a situation in which honest sowing decisions taken by the authorities were found with trivial allegations.
Bhushan said that there was no harassment, there was no tremendous action, no arrests, no search or seizure in preliminary investigation.
He referred to the decision of a top court, which killed the provision of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
He said that the issue was then investigated by a threadeber by a bench of five-judges.
“It would be completely inappropriate and would be violated to judicial discipline if this court wanted to say that we feel that this security should be given to honest officials,” Bhushan said.
Justice Vishwanathan then said, “We violate judicial discipline until we agree with you?”
Bhushan presented that he was not saying so.
Justice Vishwanathan said, “To say that you are inconsistent until you go on my way or highway, you are completely unfair,” said Justice Vishwanathan.
At the beginning of the hearing, Mehta said that he had a detailed discussion with the Director and Joint Director of the CBI and prepared a small note related to the investigating agency selecting human resources.
He said that experts from various fields including banks, finance and other departments were taken to provide their expertise on the basis of deputation.
Hearing arguments on August 5, the bench emphasized a balance to protect honest government servants, which discharged their official tasks with trivial grievances to ensure corrupt authorities that corrupt officials were not preserved.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without amending the text.
