NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday pronounced a split verdict on the constitutional validity of Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act that barred the agencies from probing corruption charges against government officials without the Centre’s permission.A bench of Justices KV Vishwanathan and BVNagarathna differed on the decision with the former judge observing that the said provision is constitutionally valid and the latter holding it as unconstitutional and should be struck down. Justice Nagarathna said that no prior sanction should be needed from competent authority to prosecute a public official, claiming that the requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act”Section 17A is unconstitutional and it ought to be struck down. No prior approval is required to be taken. This provision is an attempt to resurrect what has been earlier struck down in Vineet Narain and Subramanian Swamy judgments. The requirement of prior sanction is contrary to the object of the Act, and it forecloses inquiry and protects the corrupt rather than seeking to protect the honest and those with integrity who really do not require any protection,” Justice Nagarathna observed as quoted by Live Law. She added that corruption in the country is rampant and pervasive and there is a need to have strong anti-corruption law, claiming that section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act protects a corrupt official.Meanwhile, Justice K V Viswanathan said that the provision is valid but Lokpal/Lokayuta should decide whether a govt official should be prosecuted or not. he added that striking down Section 17A would amount to “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.”Section 17A is constitutionally valid subject to the condition that the sanction must be decided by the Lok Pal or the Lok Ayukta of the State,” Justice Viswanathan observed.He added that unless honest and public servants are shielded from frivolous investigations, a “policy paralysis” will set in.He also emphasised that a fine balance has to be maintained between the need to protect a public servant from mala fide cases and the importance of upholding probity in public offices.He in his opinion reasoned that object of Section 17A was not to condone illegal acts but to have a screening mechanism. “Bhagvad Geeta says for a self-respecting man even death is more preferable than disrepute. In this age of technology and social media the act of parading in court etc. is irreversible even if proven innocent later”, the judge said. The bench thus, ordered referring the matter to the Chief Justice of India. We direct the Registry to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate bench to hear the matter afreshThis comes after ‘Centre for Public Interest Litigation’ filed a plea in the apex court, claiming that introduction of Section 17A in PC Act was nothing but resurrection of the earlier Section 6A of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, infamously known as ‘single directive’ which mandated the CBI to take the Centre’s sanction before probing joint secretary and above level officers.Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing CPIL, had contended that Section 17A had become a tool to shield corrupt officials and obstruct legitimate inquiries.What the law saysAccording to the Section 17A of the act, no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or 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 discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval”Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month,” it adds.