Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

• Recently, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Lambodar Prasad Padhy v. Central Bureau of Investigation and others has held that no case can be registered against an unknown official without a previous sanction of the competent authority as per Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (PC). 

What was the Background of Lambodar Prasad Padhy v. Central Bureau of Investigation Case? 

• In the present case, a preliminary inquiry was conducted, and the case was registered against the Petitioner. 
• The petitioner was charged under Section 120B read with Section 477A Indian Penal Code, 1860 & Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(b) PC Act based on findings of Preliminary Enquiry. 
• It was alleged by the respondent (Central Bureau of Investigation [CBI]) that at the time of making of Ajmer-Kishangarh Highway the petitioner entered into criminal conspiracy with the other companies and National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) involved in the project. 
• It was also alleged that a hard disk was recovered from the petitioner. 
• It was allegedly said that the hard disk allegedly contained details of Subcontractors, false invoices provided by Sub-Contractors for cash generation, names of Indian officials to whom cash was provided by Spanish accused persons for further delivering the same to NHAI officials. 
• Later, CBI wrote a letter to Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRT&H), Government of India thereby seeking permission under Section 17A of PC Act. 
• The permission was denied as there were no concrete evidences found against those NHAI officials of wrongdoings. 
• However, since the respondent proceeded with registration of case despite declining of approval by the Competent Authority, under Section 17A of PC Act. 
• The present writ petition was filed to quash the case before Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High Court in this case observed the scope and purpose of Section 17A of PC Act as follows: 
  • It states that no inquiry or investigation can be commenced against the public official when he is in discharge of his duty without prior sanction of the competent authority. 
  • The purpose of this provision is to protect the honest officials who are working under their capacity as per the PC Act. 
  • It is further added that the purpose of this provision is to bar any arbitrary enquiry, inquiry or investigation against the officials. 
  • The High Court further stated that a preliminary enquiry can be held against an unknown official. 
• The Delhi High Court, after making all the above observations, held that there was no concrete evidence found against the petitioner and merely based on hard disk no corroboration can be made. 
• The Delhi High Court further stated that the respondent has abused the process of law and under Section 17A of PC Act the investigating authorities must necessarily take sanctions for proceeding with enquiry. 

What is Section 17A of the PC Act? 

• Section 17A was incorporated through 2018 amendment under the PC Act. 
• Prior Approval refers to the requirement for investigators, particularly agencies like the Crime Investigation Department (CID) or CBI, to obtain approval from the government or a competent authority before initiating an inquiry or investigation into allegations of corruption against public officials. 
• This approval is necessary before any formal action, such as lodging an FIR (First Information Report) or conducting a detailed investigation, can take place. 
• Section 17A of the PC Act is states as below: 
  • Enquiry or Inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties 
    • No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval 
      • in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government 
      • in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government. 
      • in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. 
      • Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person 
      • Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month. 

What are the Cases Based on Section 17A of PC Act? 

• Z.U. Siddiqui v. Bal Kishan Kapoor & Ors. (2005): 
  • Under this case it was emphasized that Section 17A of PC (Amendment) Act, 2018 has to be interpreted to advance the objective in favour of public servants.  
• P.K.Pradhan v. State of Sikkim through CBI (2001): 
  • In this case it was held that, to submit that the case has to be registered under PC Act, there has to be a reasonable connection with the act complained of and ‘discharge of official duty.’ 
• Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr (2023): 
  • This case was related to the definition of enquiry/inquiry/investigation and if Section 17A is procedural or substantive in nature. Further, whether Section 17A has retrospective/prospective application. However, in this case it was held that it needs to be underscored that the overarching object of the provision is to prevent arbitrary or vexatious investigations against the public servants.