2014 (5) TMI 783 - SC - Indian Laws

Prevention of Corruption Act - requirement of previous approval of the Central Government - constitutional validity of Section 6-A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (he DSPE Act)- Violation of Article 14 - Held that - Section 6-A replicates Single Directive 4.7(3)(i), which was struck down by this Court. The only change is that executive instruction is replaced by the legislation. Now, insofar as the vice that was pointed out by this Court that powers of investigation which are governed by the statutory provisions under the DSPE Act and they cannot be estopped or curtailed by any executive instruction issued under Section 4(1) of that Act is concerned, it has been remedied. The essence of police investigation is skilful inquiry and collection of material and evidence in a manner by which the potential culpable individuals are not forewarned. The previous approval from the Government necessarily required under Section 6-A would result in indirectly putting to notice the officers to be investigated before commencement of investigation. Moreover, if the CBI is not even allowed to verify complaints by preliminary enquiry, how can the case move forward? A preliminary enquiry is intended to ascertain whether a prima facie case for investigation is made out or not. If CBI is prevented from holding a preliminary enquiry, at the very threshold, a fetter is put to enable the CBI to gather relevant material. As a matter of fact, the CBI is not able to collect the material even to move the Government for the purpose of obtaining previous approval from the Central Government. Undoubtedly, every differentiation is not a discrimination but at the same time, differentiation must be founded on pertinent and real differences as distinguished from irrelevant and artificial ones. A simple physical grouping which separates one category from the other without any rational basis is not a sound or intelligible differentia. The separation or segregation must have a systematic relation and rational basis and the object of such segregation must not be discriminatory. Every public servant against whom there is reasonable suspicion of commission of crime or there are allegations of an offence under the PC Act, 1988 has to be treated equally and similarly under the law. Any distinction made between them on the basis of their status or position in service for the purposes of inquiry / investigation is nothing but an artificial one and offends Article 14. Office of public power cannot be the workshop of personal gain. The probity in public life is of great importance. How can two public servants against whom there are allegations of corruption or graft or bribetaking or criminal misconduct under the PC Act, 1988 can be made to be treated differently because one happens to be a junior officer and the other, a senior decision maker. - Section 6- A(1), which requires approval of the Central Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act, 1988 where such allegation relates to (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Government, is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - Decided in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
2. Classification of government officers for the purpose of inquiry/investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. The impact of Section 6-A on the rule of law and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Constitutional Validity of Section 6-A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946:
Section 6-A of the DSPE Act, inserted by Act 45 of 2003, requires the approval of the Central Government before conducting any inquiry or investigation into offenses alleged under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving Central Government employees of the level of Joint Secretary and above. The constitutional validity of Section 6-A was challenged on the grounds that it violated Article 14 of the Constitution by creating a privileged class of public servants, thereby subverting the normal investigative process and the rule of law. The Supreme Court referred to the Vineet Narain case, which had previously quashed the Single Directive containing similar provisions, and emphasized that every person accused of committing the same offense should be dealt with equally under the law.

2. Classification of Government Officers for Inquiry/Investigation:
The Court examined whether the classification made in Section 6-A, based on the status of government officers, was permissible under Article 14. It was argued that the classification was intended to protect senior decision-makers from frivolous and vexatious complaints. However, the Court found that corruption is an enemy of the nation and that all public servants, irrespective of their status, must be subjected to the same investigative process. The Court held that the classification based on status was not founded on sound differentia and did not have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation, which is to combat corruption effectively.

3. Impact on Rule of Law and Equality under Article 14:
The Court emphasized that the essence of police investigation is skilful inquiry and collection of evidence without forewarning the potential accused. Section 6-A, by requiring prior approval from the Central Government, would result in leaks and disclosures, compromising the confidentiality and efficiency of the investigation. The provision was found to be arbitrary and unreasonable, as it impeded the CBI's ability to conduct preliminary inquiries and gather relevant material. The Court reiterated that the rule of law is a facet of equality under Article 14 and that any breach of the rule of law amounts to a breach of equality. The Court held that Section 6-A violated Article 14 as it created an unjustifiable distinction between public servants based on their status.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court declared Section 6-A of the DSPE Act, which required Central Government approval for investigating senior officers, as invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that all public servants, irrespective of their status, must be subjected to the same investigative process to combat corruption effectively. The provision was found to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, undermining the rule of law and equality before the law.