2016 (3) TMI 1464 - SC - Indian Laws

Jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment to inquire or investigate into any offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 - HELD THAT - The provisions of Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 has been held to be unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by a Constitution Bench of this Court in DR. SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VERSUS DIRECTOR CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ANR. AND CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2014 (5) TMI 783 - SUPREME COURT . The judgment of the Constitution Bench is however silent as to whether its decision would operate prospectively or would have retrospective effect. Though a large number of precedents have been cited at the Bar to persuade us to take either of the above views as would support the case of the rival parties we are of the considered view that this question should receive the consideration of a Constitution Bench in view of the provisions of Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India. The provisions of Section 6A(1) do indicate that for officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above a kind of immunity has been provided for. Whether there can be a deprivation of such immunity by a retrospective operation of a judgment of the Court in the context of Article 20 of the Constitution of India is the moot question that arises for determination in the present case - having regard to the provisions of Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India the aforesaid question referred to a larger bench for which purpose the papers may now be laid before the Hon ble the Chief Justice of India on the administrative side. Matter referred to Larger Bench.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 regarding the requirement of Central Government approval for inquiry or investigation into offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Constitutionality of Section 6A(1) in light of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.
3. Retrospective or prospective effect of the decision declaring Section 6A(1) unconstitutional.
4. Reference to a larger bench regarding the deprivation of immunity by retrospective operation of a court judgment in the context of Article 20 of the Indian Constitution.

Issue 1:
The Respondent accused questioned a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, based on Section 6A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946. The Delhi High Court held in favor of the accused, requiring fresh consideration for Central Government approval. The C.B.I. appealed the decision, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

Issue 2:
The Supreme Court noted that a Constitution Bench previously declared Section 6A(1) unconstitutional for violating Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. However, the Court found ambiguity regarding the prospective or retrospective effect of this decision. Given the importance of this issue, the Court decided to refer it to a larger bench for clarification under Article 145(3) of the Constitution.

Issue 3:
In a previous case, the question of whether Article 20 of the Constitution protects the substantial rights or immunity of an accused at the time of the offense was raised. The Court highlighted the need for a larger bench to determine if a retrospective court judgment could deprive an accused of immunity, especially in the context of Section 6A(1) and Article 20 of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court referred this crucial question to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench to address the constitutional implications thoroughly.