हिंदी समाचार पढ़े
Expand
O.P. Jindal Global University
 
Home / Latest News / Centre to file reply on ‘plea against prior approval to probe govt official for graft’; SC grants time till 18th Feb.

Centre to file reply on ‘plea against prior approval to probe govt official for graft’; SC grants time till 18th Feb.

February 16, 2019:

On Friday, Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Sanjiv Khanna of the Hon’ble Supreme Court grants time till February 18 to the Centre to file its response on the PIL, challenging the Constitutional validity of a provision of the Anti-Graft Law.

CJI Ranjan Gogoi & Justice Sanjiv Khanna

The constitutional validity of a provision of the anti-graft law which mandates prior sanction for starting a probe against a government official in a corruption case has been challenged.

The bench took note of the submissions by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, and allowed him to file the response by Monday.

The bench said NGO, Centre for Public Interest Litigation’ (CPIL) can file its rejoinder within a week after the Centre files its response.

Earlier, the apex court had issued notice to the Centre on the PIL, filed through lawyer Prashant Bhushan, challenging the validity of amended section 17A (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The plea said the amended provision makes the prior sanction of appointing authority essential to launch investigation against government servants in corruption cases.

It has alleged that the amended section curtailed investigation against corrupt officials at the threshold and it was the third attempt by the government to introduce a provision which had already been held un-constitutional twice by the apex court.

It has said that according to the amended Act, prior sanction for inquiry or investigation is required only where the alleged offence by a public servant is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties.

“It would be extremely difficult for the police to determine whether a complaint about an alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant, especially as even an enquiry cannot be made without prior sanction,” it said.

The plea has claimed that discretion to determine whether or not an alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant could become a matter of litigation and would impede time-bound action on cases of corruption.

“The impugned amendments have rendered the PC Act almost ineffective by completely diluting the scope of some of the original provisions, by deleting some of the earlier offences and also by introducing new provision, which in effect would protect corrupt officials and exponentially increase level of corruption,” it said.

The plea claimed that obtaining prior sanction to commence investigation not only took away the element of secrecy and surprise but introduced a period of delay during which vital evidences can be manipulated or destroyed and gave time to the accused to lobby by employing various means for denial of permission.

“The seeking of permission in itself becomes a cause for corruption as it introduces yet another discretion, at the crucial stage of commencement of investigation.

“Often this discretion of granting permission has conflicts of interest as the matter is referred to the very same department in which the corruption took place,” it said.

The plea also challenged the constitutional validity of section 13 (1) (d) (ii) (criminal misconduct) of PC Act, which made it an offence for a public servant to obtain for himself or any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by abuse of office.

It alleged that due to lapse of time between the payment of bribes and commencement of investigations, the bribes are converted into other assets or stashed away in safe havens.

“Besides, for a public servant, payment of bribes from the private party may not always be the consideration. Many times they abuse their positions in order to seek favours in promotion and posting, post-retirement benefits from their superiors,” it said.

The plea has said that section 13(1)(d) acted as a protection against non-traceability of the bribe and accepting favours other than bribe and prevented wasting valuable resources in tracing a bribe.

Source Link

Facebook Comments

 
Related tags :
 

Hindu

Acheche DIn Acheche Din     pic by sify Hindu Job Hazards America First Walk Your own Talk

Hindu

State of Affairs Women Safety: State of Affairs             pic by mangal

Hindu

Hindu

...as an eminent lawyer you ought to know that your action tantamount to, under Section B, sub-section G.VIX, read along with I.P.C. (A) XI (B), notwithstanding...                                        TOI

TOI Pakistan Democracy Pakistan Democracy State of JudiciaryState of Judiciary by Sandeep Adhwaryu of TOI Delivery Boy Delivery Boy                    by Satish Tax Reforms    by Hindu Tax Reforms by Hindu Donald Trump’s immigration ban Donald Trump’s immigration ban NPA Hurts Public Sector Banks NPA Hurts Public Sector Banks Humour @ Latest Laws Achhey Din Humour @ Latest Laws: Achhey Din

TOI

IBN IBN

TOI

Cartoon Hindu Pic by Hindu Women Empowerment and Sports Women Empowerment and Sports

TOI

Hindu Auto Driver thrashed for no fault Auto Driver thrashed for no fault,                  source oneindia UIDAI Leaks UIDAI Leaks 150425_-_farmers_a_2384764f

Hindu

Demonitisation Diaries Demonitisation Diaries                                                       by sify Hindu

Hindu

pinterest

Hindu Hindu Netas in Election mode Netas in Election mode TOI Hindu

Hindu

Alligator vs Litigator Alligator vs Litigator

TOI

Soaring of Oil Prices pic by indiaone TOI TOI Time to straighten up Time to straighten up                pic by TOI

TOI

Hindu Demonitisation Diaries 2 Demonitisation Diaries 2  pic by sify State of Two Nations State of Two Nations               pic by sandeep

Hindu

ALL_1_Theme_01A_24_2383617g

Hindu

TOI

If India takes One Step, we will take Two by Satish If India takes One Step, we will take Two ...................by Satish

TOI

Hindu Hindu

Hindu Hindu Missing the Point Missing the Point pic by english blog TOI

TOI

Hindu Hindu

TOI

Four Pillars of Democracy Four Pillars of Democracy             by Satish [caption id="attachment_97467" align="alignleft" width="621"]Humour with Latest Laws Humour with Latest Laws[/caption] Painting India Saffron Painting India Saffron Lawyers Bearing the Burden Literally Lawyers Bearing the Burden Literally pic by OMG TOI Demonitisation Diaries 1 Demonitisation Diaries 1                                  pic by sify   Belts are for Dogs Belts are for Dogs Let Justice Be Let Justice Be Hindu
Download our App
ios icon
android icon
 
 
 

Check Also

Delhi High Court notifies its Rules for Designation of Senior Advocate, 2018, Read Text here

March 21, 2019: The Rules will replace with the now existing 2012 Rules on the designation of Senior Advocates. The New Rules seek to introduce major changes in the process of designation of Senior Advocate by the High Court. As ...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *