Login With Google
SC on anti-graft law provision
Why is it in news?
- The Supreme Court sought the Centre's response on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of a provision of the anti-graft law.
- It mandates prior sanction for starting a probe against a government official in a corruption case.
What the PIL said?
- The plea has alleged that the amended section curtailed investigation against corrupt officials at the threshold and it was the third attempt by the government to introduce a provision which had already been held un-constitutional twice by the apex court.
- It has said that according to the amended Act, prior sanction for enquiry or investigation is required only where the alleged offence by a public servant is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties.
- The plea has claimed that discretion to determine whether or not an alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant could become a matter of litigation and would impede time-bound action on cases of corruption.
- The impugned amendments have rendered the PC Act almost ineffective by completely diluting the scope of some of the original provisions, by deleting some of the earlier offences and also by introducing new provision, which in effect would protect corrupt officials and exponentially increase level of corruption.
- The plea further claimed that obtaining of prior sanction to commence investigation not only took away the element of secrecy and surprise but introduced a period of delay during which vital evidences can be manipulated or destroyed and gave time to the accused to lobby by employing various means for denial of permission.
- The plea has said that section 13(1)(d) acted as a protection against non-traceability of the bribe, accepting favours other than bribe and prevented wasting valuable resources in tracing a bribe.
Source
The Hindu