Corruption law provision shields honest officers, punishes dishonest ones: Centre to SC
The government informed a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan that "fearless good governance" was also a "very fundamental part of any constitutional governance".
The bench then reserved its verdict on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act which mandates prior approval to start investigation against government officials in corruption cases.
" 17A, the way it is couched, in the most restrictive manner is one more attempt of the legislature to have fearless governance ensuring honest officers are not punished and dishonest officers do not go scot-free," Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said.
The bench enquired about the number of corruption complaints received since the amended Section 17A of the Act came into force in 2018.
Mehta said he could give figures of complaints that were received by the CBI.
He said approval was granted in 60 per cent of the complaints.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, appearing for petitioner NGO Centre for Public Interest Litigation, said, "So in last six years, they say that 2,395 complaints came for either preliminary inquiry or investigation."
"They say out of these, they declined 989 references, roughly 41 per cent, and approved 1,406 references," added Bhushan.
Mehta said reasoned orders were passed while either granting or refusing approval.
He said ultimately, these orders could be a subject matter of judicial scrutiny and the aggrieved party could always challenge it.
"Now, in the present day of this aggressive activism, if I may use that expression, the moment it is refused, the complainant comes with RTI. He comes with documents and he immediately rushes to the court challenging non-grant of approval," Mehta said.
He said the officers were very careful in either granting or refusing approval.
The bench also heard Bhushan's rejoinder.
"Possibly, he would now take your lordships to laying down some guidelines, etc. Please avoid doing that. There is no vacuum. There are judicial pronouncements on the subject and the statutory regime in place," Mehta said.
Bhushan said preliminary enquiry on a complaint would reveal whether there was any substance in it or not.
"Why should they be exposed to such harassment?" the bench asked.
It also pointed out a situation in which honest bona fide decisions taken by officers were met with frivolous allegations.
Bhushan said there was no harassment, no coercive action, no arrest, no search or seizure at the stage of preliminary enquiry.
He referred to an apex court judgement which struck down a provision of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
He said then the issue was examined threadbare by a five-judge bench.
"It would be totally improper and a violation of judicial discipline if this court were to say that we feel that this protection needs to be given to honest officers," Bhushan said.
Justice Viswanathan then said, "Unless we agree with you, we violate judicial discipline?"
Bhushan submitted he was not saying that.
"To say that unless you go my way or the highway, you are committing impropriety, is completely unjustified," Justice Viswanathan said.
Mehta in the beginning of the hearing said he had a detailed discussion with the director and joint director of CBI and prepared a short note relating to the probe agency selecting human resources.
He said experts from different fields, including bank, finance and other department were taken to provide their expertise on deputation basis.
While hearing the arguments on August 5, the bench stressed on striking a balance to protect honest government servants discharging their official functions from frivolous complaints while ensuring corrupt officers were not shielded.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Electricity, a ‘public good', must not be vulnerable to ‘undue political posturing', says Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has expressed a lack of confidence on whether Electricity Regulatory Commissions (ERCs) are living up to the independence and autonomy afforded to them under the law. ERCs have the exclusive authority of tariff determination, play a pivotal role in the promotion of competition, and in ensuring reliable power supply across the country. The court said electricity is a 'public good' and a 'material resource', and is especially vulnerable to 'undue political posturing'. The ERCs were meant to serve as a bastion under the Electricity Act of 2003 to ensure that electricity was sold and distributed for the common good, unruffled by the politics of the day, and uninfluenced by the market forces of demand and supply. In an 82-page judgment, a Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta has, however, questioned the very 'functional autonomy' of the ERCs, while drawing attention to the 'manage and manoeuvre' tactics employed to arrive at tariffs by creating regulatory assets 'over and above all permissible limits' prescribed by the electricity laws. A regulatory asset is adopted as a measure by the Regulatory Commissions when the gap between the revenue required by a power distribution company to meet its costs and expenditure, and the actual revenue realised through immediate tariff, is so high that it would not only prejudice the consumer but lead to what is called a 'tariff shock'. The court noted that, in recent times, ERCs have allowed power distribution companies' regulatory assets to balloon for decades without liquidating them, much to the detriment of the public, who have to bear the ultimate burden of paying more for electricity. This is despite the emphasis in the Electricity Act that the tariff fixed by ERCs must progressively reflect the cost of supply of electricity, and reduce cross subsidies. 'This is where the problem lies. Though the Electricity Act envisages functional autonomy for Regulatory Commissions, and the statutory scheme is complete in all respects, the decisions taken by the Commissions, many a time, have not inspired confidence of independence and autonomy. The reasons are not difficult to conceive as there is an issue about the appointment process. The assertion of independence, however, comes through individual volition and that is where the mandate of transparency leads to accountability,' Justice Narasimha, who authored the judgment, pointed out. The Act requires ERCs to work in cohesion with the State to ensure the supply of affordable power to all sections of society, across regions and terrains. 'But the adverse effect of an overbearing regulatory asset extended beyond proportion is an anathema to good governance of the Electricity Act… The regulatory asset cannot be permitted to balloon into such proportions or continue for such periods, year after year, that the governance of the sector is set in peril, affecting the rights of the utilities and at the same time jeopardising the consumer interest, who eventually end up bearing the burden,' the court noted. Issuing a series of directions, the apex court ordered that regulatory assets must not exceed the reasonable percentage as envisaged in the Electricity Rules. Existing regulatory assets must be liquidated in a maximum of seven years from April 1, 2024, and those created in future must be liquidated in three years from April 1, 2024. The court directed ERCs to provide the roadmap for liquidation of regulatory assets in future, and also undertake a strict and intensive audit of the circumstances in which distribution companies have continued without recovery of their regulatory assets.
The Hindu
26 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Punjab and Haryana High Court flags gaps in Punjab's Land pooling policy; says notified in ‘haste'
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that the Punjab government's controversial Land Pooling Policy-2025 prima facie appears to have been notified in 'haste' and that all concerns — including social and environmental impact assessments, timelines and a grievance redress mechanism — should have been addressed in the policy before its notification. These observations were made in a detailed order in connection with a writ petition challenging the policy. On August 7, the court granted an interim stay on its implementation and gave the State four weeks to respond to the concerns. The next hearing is scheduled for September 10. 'The State proposes to take over tens of thousands of acres of fertile land in the entire State of Punjab for carrying out its proposed development work, without carrying out any Social Impact Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment study, although a stand is taken that the assessment would be carried out later when they have definite information about the number of land owners who have opted for the scheme,' the court noted. It added, 'It has been held by the Supreme Court in several cases that before permitting urban development, the State ought to carry out an environmental impact assessment.' The Bench also pointed out that the policy prescribes no timelines and provides no mechanism to address grievances of affected persons. 'Payment of subsistence allowance has been provided to the land owners, but there is no provision for rehabilitation of those landless labourers, artisans and others who are dependent on the land,' it said. 'It has also been submitted before this Court that the State's statutory bodies shall themselves develop the land, but no budgetary provisions appear to have been made, nor anything has been put forth before this Court to indicate that the State has adequate resources to finance the development project under the policy,' the order stated. The Aam Aadmi Party government had notified the Land Pooling Policy-2025 on June 4. According to the government, the policy aims to create well-planned urban estates to meet the needs of a growing population by consolidating fragmented land parcels and ensuring equitable, sustainable development. Since its launch, several farmer bodies and political parties have been protesting, demanding its withdrawal.
New Indian Express
26 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
BJP national spokesperson asks Rahul to resign on "moral grounds" if he has no faith in EC
Reading out excerpts of a past Supreme Court judgement, the BJP spokesperson said the apex court had observed that there was no doubt about the bona fides of the Election Commission and that it was a matter of record that the poll body had built a reputation as an impartial body over the years. "Rahul Gandhi, if you don't trust the election commission and the observations made by the Supreme Court, do one thing: first, you resign from the Lok Sabha membership. Priyanka Gandhi, you also resign. Sonia Gandhi, you also resign at least on moral grounds because you are raising questions on the same Election Commission," Bhatia said. "Then, you go to the Supreme Court, the high court and people," he said. Bhatia also demanded that the chief ministers of Congress-ruled Karnataka, Telangana and Himachal Pradesh must also resign, for their top leaders had no faith in the EC. "Whatever suits you, you accept. Whatever is inconvenient, you reject and cast aspersions on the Election Commission. This will not work," Bhatia said.
