desk
Share
News Topical, Digital Desk : The Centre told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a provision in the anti-corruption law that makes prior permission mandatory for initiating probe against government officials in corruption cases is an attempt by the legislature to establish "fearless governance". It thus protects honest officers and punishes dishonest ones.
Fearless good governance principles are a fundamental part of constitutional governance
The government told a bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Vishwanathan that the principle of "fearless good governance" is a very fundamental part of any constitutional governance.
After this, the bench reserved its decision on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Under this, it is mandatory to take prior permission to start investigation against government officials in corruption cases.
Investigation was approved in 60 percent of the complaints
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that Section 17A is another attempt by the legislature to ensure that honest officers are not punished and dishonest officers do not escape. The bench asked about the number of corruption complaints received since the amended Section 17A came into force in 2018. Mehta said that he can give the figures of complaints received by the CBI. Investigation has been approved in 60 percent of the complaints.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, who appeared on behalf of the petitioner NGO Center for Public Interest Litigation, said that in the last six years, 2,395 complaints came for preliminary investigation or inquiry. Out of these, 989 i.e. about 41 percent cases were rejected and investigation was approved in 1,406 cases.
Tamil Nadu government should not withdraw cases against ministers and MLAs without investigation: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Tamil Nadu government that no cases should be withdrawn against sitting or former ministers or MLAs of the ruling political party DMK without proper investigation.
A bench of Justice Suryakant, Justice Ujjal Bhuiyan and Justice N Kotishwar Singh passed this order on a PIL. Also, an affidavit was asked to be submitted in this regard. In the PIL, a demand was made to transfer the pending cases in the state elsewhere.
Petition withdrawn under pressure against some ministers
The petitioner alleged that the sanction granted for prosecution against some ministers was withdrawn due to political pressure. However, the bench clarified that the affidavit submitted on behalf of the state government would be filed to satisfy the court and not the petitioner.
This problem is not limited to Tamil Nadu only
Senior advocate DS Naidu, appearing for the petitioner, said there were many instances where permission was withdrawn before the investigation was completed. He demanded judicial monitoring of the matter. Justice Bhuiyan said this problem is not limited to Tamil Nadu but is prevalent throughout the country. The next hearing of the case will be on September 17.
--Advertisement--
