Erring bureaucrats have to now face the music
The Supreme Court has removed one of the biggest roadblocks in the fight against corruption by lifting the shield that protects senior bureaucrats from law enforcement agencies seeking to investigate charges of graft against them. For decades, every time investigators sought to probe Government officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above, they faced an insurmountable stonewall that often brought their efforts to a dead end. Now, the apex court has opened the iron gates that should help usher in an era of greater transparency and accountability in governance and policy-making. On Monday, a five-justice Bench of the Supreme Court struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, which had compelled the Central Bureau of Investigation to seek permission from the Union Government before proceeding against senior bureaucrats, as unconstitutional and against public interest. It gave several reasons for doing so. First, the apex court ruled that the provision discriminated between senior and junior officers in violation of Article 14 which guarantees equal protection before the law. Since officers belonging to either category, if convicted of corruption, would be subjected to the same rules and laws, there is no reason why one should receive special protection. Second, the Supreme Court pointed out that the need to take permission from the Union Government compromises the CBI's autonomy, subjects it to political control and “thwarts an independent, unhampered... inquiry”. Third, it observed that by having to secure the Centre's nod pre-investigation, the CBI inevitably lost the surprise factor, so crucial to nailing the culprit, as the suspect had been forewarned. In fact, the CBI's hands are so tightly bound in such cases that, the court noted, it cannot even conduct a preliminary enquiry on the basis of which a prima facie case may be established. Finally, the court also expressed concerns at how Section 6A put a “criminal-bureaucratic-political nexus in a position to block inquiry”. The 2G scam wherein former Telecom secretary S Behura allegedly colluded with his political master is a good example of this.
The Supreme Court's decision has expectedly been received with some apprehension in Government circles. The provision was designed to shield senior bureaucrats from malicious complaints so that they could discharge their duties without fear or favour. That Section 6A has instead been abused to shelter the corrupt is a travesty, that has thereby necessitated the annulment of the provision. As for remaining concerns about the harassment of upright bureaucrats, the fact is that such officers have been politically victimised even with Section 6A in place. The case of former Coal Secretary PC Parakh is just one example.
This is not the first time that Section 6A has been struck off the books. In 1997, the Supreme Court had negated its earlier avatar, known as the Single Directive, as part of the landmark Vineet Narain judgement in the Jain hawala case. At that time, the Directive was only an executive order. later, the Union Government brought it back into the books through the legislative route, thereby putting Parliament's stamp of approval on the Single Directive.