Today, On 24th September, Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) requires prior approval from the government before investigating public officials for decisions made during their official duties, unless caught in the act of bribery. This provision aims to protect public servants from frivolous probes but also mandates accountability in corruption cases. Recently, Karnataka Governor sanctioned a corruption probe against former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah under this section, a move upheld by the High Court, allowing activists to file cases based on alleged corrupt practices during his tenure.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the Governor’s approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) to investigate Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in connection with the MUDA case.
However, the court rejected the sanction for prosecution under Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Last month, Karnataka Governor Thawarchand Gehlot granted permission to three activists to file corruption cases against Siddaramaiah regarding land allocated by the Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) to his wife, Parvathi, in the upscale Vijayanagar area.
The court stated,
“The decision of the Governor, despite alleged undue haste, has not invalidated the order… the order is limited to approval under Section 17A of the PCA and does not constitute a sanction under Section 218 of BNSS.”
Siddaramaiah echoed this point in his first remarks following the court’s ruling, the veteran Congress leader said,
“The judges restricted it solely to Section 17A of the Governor’s order. The court outright rejected the Governor’s sanction under Section 218. I am confident the truth will emerge in the coming days, and the investigation under 17A will be dismissed,”
Section 17A, introduced through an amendment and effective from July 26, 2018, offers additional safeguards to public servants against investigations based on frivolous allegations. It mandates that a police officer must obtain prior approval from a competent authority before conducting any inquiry or investigation into offenses allegedly committed by public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In Siddaramaiah’s case, the Governor already granted prior sanction to the three private complainants. Additionally, the court noted that providing a personal hearing was not mandatory under Section 17A.
Conversely, Section 218 of the BNSS, which replaced Section 197 of the CrPC, pertains to the prosecution of public servants and judges. It stipulates that the central or state government must decide on a request for prosecution sanction within 120 days. If the government fails to act within this period, the sanction is automatically considered granted.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
