January 2026

Section 17A - to be referred to a three judge bench

Shielding honest officers vs Masking the corrupt

Introduced in 2018, mandates that police officers must receive the government's approval before probing a public servant for offences related to the recommendations made or decisions taken in the discharge of their official duties.

Justice KV Vishwanath upholds the provision.

• Suggested to include an independent screening mechanism via the Lokpal and Lokayukta
• Without basic assurance of protection, public servants will resort to play it safe syndrome.
• But the power to grant or refuse approval lies with the government, violating the principle of independence required in the corruption probes.

Justice Nagarathna says the provision is unconstitutional

• This project is an object and purpose of the PGA. The provision protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest.
• If a decision involves high-ranking officials or ministers, a subordinate officer cannot be expected to impartially grant the approval.
• Dismissed the provision, as a gatekeeper provision to filter out baseless allegations.

Vineet Narayan vs Union of India, 1998

the 3-judge Supreme Court bench struck down an executive order that required the CBI to seek permission before investigating officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above.

Subrahmanyam Swami vs CBI, 2014

The Constitution Bench of the supporting police struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act that has codified a similar protection for the senior officers.