The document summarizes and critiques a proposed amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act that would require investigative agencies to obtain approval from the Lokpal or Lokayukta before investigating any allegations of corruption against public servants. The key points made are: 1) The amendment would require prior approval for investigating any recommendations or decisions made by public servants, paralyzing anti-corruption efforts given the millions of public servants. 2) Obtaining such approval would involve lengthy procedures outlined in the Lokpal Act, delaying investigations significantly. 3) Rather than facilitating anti-corruption work, this change would overwhelm and weaken the Lokpal/Lokayukta while diluting their role and preventing

1. Foundation for Democratic Reforms / Lok Satta
Flat No. 801, Srinivasa Towers, beside ITC Kakatiya Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad ‐ 500 016.
Tel: 91‐40‐23419949; Fax: 91‐40‐2341 9948 web: www.loksatta.org ; email: drjploksatta@gmail.com / jp@fdrindia.org
16th
May, 2015, Hyderabad
Implications of the Proposed Section 17A in Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
- Dr Jayaprakash Narayan
1. In 2003, Section 6A was incorporated in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 (DSPE Act, 1946) dealing with CBI. This section mandated prior approval of
government before CBI took up investigation of cases of corruption under Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act, 1988) relating to officers of the rank of Joint
Secretary and above.
In 2014, in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swami vs Director, CBI and others (writ
petition (civil) number 21 of 2004 of Centre for Public Interest Litigation vs Union of
India) the Supreme Court struck down Section 6A as unconstitutional and violative of
rule of law.
2. PC Act, 1988 gives full freedom to investigative agencies to conduct enquiry into
allegations against any public servant. No prior permission was envisaged in law for
investigation. However, Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988 as well as Section 197 of
CrPC envisage prior sanction of prosecution of a public servant.
3. Now the Union government is introducing an official amendment in the pending
legislation The Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Bill, 2013 (PC Amendment
Bill, 2013). Under the proposed Section 8B of the Amendment Bill, a new Section
17A is sought to be inserted in the Principal Act as follows:
“17A (1) No police officer shall conduct any investigation into any offence alleged to have
been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to
any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in the discharge of his
official functions or duties, without the previous approval-
(a) of the Lokpal, in the case of a public servant who is employed, or as the case may be,
was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs
of the Union, and is a person referred to in clauses (a) to (h) of sub-section (1) of section 14
of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013;
(b) of the Lokayukta of the State or such authority established by law in that State under
whose jurisdiction the public servant falls, in the case of a person who is employed, or as the
case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection
with the affairs of a State,
Conveyed by an order issued by the Lokpal in accordance with the provisions contained in
Chapter VII of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 or the Lokayukta of the State or such
authority referred to in clause (b) for processing of investigation against the public servant:
Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on
the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself
or for any other person.

2. Foundation for Democratic Reforms / Lok Satta
Flat No. 801, Srinivasa Towers, beside ITC Kakatiya Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad ‐ 500 016.
Tel: 91‐40‐23419949; Fax: 91‐40‐2341 9948 web: www.loksatta.org ; email: drjploksatta@gmail.com / jp@fdrindia.org
(2) Any information received or any complaint which is made to a police officer or any
agency (including the Delhi Special Police Establishment) in respect of an alleged offence
relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of
his official functions or duties shall, first, be referred by such police officer or agency-
(i) in respect of a public servant referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1), to the Lokpal;
(ii) in respect of a public servant referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1), to the Lokayukta
of the State or such authority referred to in that clause.
(3) Any information or complaint referred by a police officer or the agency under the sub-
section (2), shall be deemed to be a complaint made to-
(a) the Lokpal under clause(e) of sub-section (1) of section (2) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas,
Act, 2013 and all the provisions of the said Act shall apply accordingly to such complaint;
(b )the Lokayukta of a State or such authority established by law in a State, as the case may
be, and all the provisions of the law under which the Lokayukta or such authority has been
established shall apply accordingly to such complaint”.
Implications of the proposed Section 17A:
a) This covers all recommendations and decisions of all public servants in the discharge of their
official functions or duties. That means, except in cases of successful trap, every allegation of
corruption must first be forwarded to Lokpal/Lokayukta for prior approval of investigation.
The police, who have the duty to investigate any and every crime, including murder, rape,
misappropriation, are prevented from investigating corruption on their own.
b) Given the way Lokpal/Lokayukta institutions are structured, we can have every confidence
that each case will be decided on merits. But there are about 60 lakh public servants of Union
government (including public undertakings and departments), and in many major states there
are over 10 lakh public servants. Overall, there are about 200 lakh or 2 crore public servants
in India. If the CBI and State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) have to forward each case to
Lokpal/Lokayukta before even commencing investigation, the whole anti-corruption
institutional framework will be jammed and paralysed.
c) The proposed Section17A does not even allow a summary, instant decision by
Lokpal/Lokayukta. The amendment specifies that the Lokpal/Lokayukta must give prior
approval conveyed by an order issued in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter
7 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013. Chapter 7 of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act,
2013 envisages an elaborate procedure even for preliminary enquiry. In case of Lokpal, it
may again involve CVC, CBI or Lokpal’s own investigative wing. Also, even at preliminary
stage, the public servant must be given an opportunity of being heard. The preliminary
enquiry may take 90 days or longer. Only after such an elaborate procedure can
Lokpal/Lokayukta accord approval for investigation.
d) This provision ultimately creates enormous hurdles to the investigation of any corruption
offence even in the preliminary stage. What is needed is speedy sanction of prosecution under
Section 19(1) of the PC Act, 1988 and Section 197 of CrPC, and to ensure that such sanction

3. Foundation for Democratic Reforms / Lok Satta
Flat No. 801, Srinivasa Towers, beside ITC Kakatiya Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad ‐ 500 016.
Tel: 91‐40‐23419949; Fax: 91‐40‐2341 9948 web: www.loksatta.org ; email: drjploksatta@gmail.com / jp@fdrindia.org
power vests in an independent, impartial authority like Lokpal/Lokayukta. Instead, even
powers of investigation are taken away from CBI and ACBs by the new Section 17A.
e) The net result will be tremendous weakening of investigative agencies, and dilution of Lokpal
and Lokayuktas. The Lokpal/Lokayuktas are intended to be high ombudsmen to hold senior
civil servants and highly placed public servants to account. By bringing every case of
corruption before them even at the allegation stage prior to investigation, the
Lokpal/Lokayuktas lose all relevance as high ombudsmen, and will become ineffective, over-
burdened, dysfunctional, slow-moving bureaucracies, defeating the very purpose of Lokpal
legislation.
This provision is unconstitutional as declared by the Supreme Court, illogical in extending
the discredited single directive to all classes of government employees, retrogressive as it
weakens investigative agencies, burdensome on the institutions of Lokpal/Lokayuktas, and
ultimately counter-productive in combating corruption.
We urge you to use your good offices to ensure that the Members of Parliament across parties
are made aware of these grave implications and the proposed amendment is dropped. All
parties, civil society & media must raise voice against this retrogressive step. We need strong,
effective institutions.
- Dr Jayaprakash Narayan
* * *