E-Paper
Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not an option: Justice Viswanathan on striking down Section 17A of PC Act
The judge held that safeguarding honest officers and punishing the corrupt are not mutually exclusive goals
Warning against dismantling statutory safeguards in the name of reform, Justice KV Viswanathan upheld the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, and cautioned that striking it down would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and risk crippling governance.
In his judgment, Justice Viswanathan emphasised that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, the smooth functioning of the executive depends critically on bureaucrats and officers who take decisions under constant public scrutiny. He recalled the Constituent Assembly’s emphasis on responsible governance, underscoring that administrative paralysis would be a grave national cost.
The judge noted that Parliament introduced Section 17A to address a real and persistent concern –– the fear among honest officers that even well-intentioned decisions could trigger criminal proceedings, reputational damage and irreversible personal harm. In today’s media-saturated environment, he observed, arrest and public humiliation can permanently scar an officer’s integrity and family life, even if the individual is later exonerated.
“If honest public servants are not given a basic assurance that decisions taken by them will not be subjected to frivolous complaints, it is the nation that will suffer. The panacea of striking down will turn out to be worse than the disease,” he emphasised.
Justice Viswanathan rejected the argument that protection at the prosecution stage under Section 19 is sufficient. By then, he said, the damage to reputation is already done. Section 17A, therefore, operates as an early-stage safeguard to ensure that frivolous or motivated complaints do not derail governance.
At the same time, he clarified that the provision was never intended to condone corruption or shield misconduct. The object, he said, is limited to protecting bona fide recommendations and decisions taken in official capacity, not actions driven by extraneous considerations.
Addressing concerns raised in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy judgments, Justice Viswanathan held that the constitutional infirmities identified in those cases could be cured through procedural safeguards rather than wholesale invalidation. He proposed an interpretive framework under which complaints are first subjected to independent screening by the Lokpal or Lokayuktas through preliminary inquiries.
Such institutional gatekeeping, he said, mirrors the structure of the Lokpal Act itself, where investigation is not automatic and discretion is exercised at the threshold. Independent screening ensures that genuine cases proceed while frivolous ones are filtered out, preserving both accountability and administrative confidence.
Justice Viswanathan rejected the charge of invalid classification, holding that Section 17A does not create an unconstitutional distinction among public servants. He also noted that striking down the provision would permit immediate registration of FIRs and coercive action even in hindsight-driven or motivated complaints –– a “regressive” outcome.
Concluding, the judge held that safeguarding honest officers and punishing the corrupt are not mutually exclusive goals. With independent oversight, time-bound decisions and reasoned recommendations, Section 17A, he said, can coexist with the rule of law and ensure that governance attracts, rather than repels, the best talent in public service.
