Supreme Court’s 2014 Ruling on DSPE Act’s Section 6A to Have Retrospective Effect
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has declared that its 2014 judgment, which deemed Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 (DSPE Act) unconstitutional, will operate retrospectively. This implies that Section 6A is considered void from its very date of insertion.
Section 6A of the DSPE Act mandated the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to secure prior sanction from the central government before probing corruption allegations against officers of joint secretary rank and above. This provision was invalidated by the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India.
The crux of the current deliberation, presided over by a constitution bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, AS Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari, revolved around the retrospective applicability of this 2014 ruling. The bench conclusively determined that the earlier decision would have a ‘retrospective operation’.
Justice Nath, delivering the judgment on behalf of the bench, elucidated the following key points:
- “The struck-down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was a part of the procedure only and did not constitute any new offence or sentence.”
- “Article 20(1) of the Constitution has no bearing or relevance in the context of the declaration of Section 6A as unconstitutional, either to the validity or the invalidity of this provision.”
- “The declaration made by the constitution bench in 2014 as to the unconstitutionality of Section 6A of the DSPE Act will have a retrospective effect. This section is held to be not in force from the date of its insertion, i.e., 11.09.2003.”
The backdrop of this case involves an arrest executed under the DSPE Act without prior sanction, leading to a legal challenge citing a violation of Section 6A. This section obligated the CBI to obtain prior government approval before investigating a joint secretary or higher-ranked officer in corruption cases.
The Delhi High Court had previously ruled that the CBI needed to seek central government consent for reinvestigation, given that the investigation had commenced before the arrest. This judgment was contested by the CBI in the Supreme Court in 2007.
However, while the case was under adjudication, Section 6A was declared unconstitutional in Subramanian Swamy (2014). The retrospective applicability of this ruling on ongoing cases remained ambiguous, leading to the current constitution bench’s deliberation.
This decision by the apex court underscores the importance of procedural clarity and the rights of individuals in the face of legal provisions.
