Editor's Pick: SC says CBI does not need permission to probe pre-2014

Clearing the grey area around an invalidated amendment on Monday, the Supreme Court said that senior government officers of the level of joint secretary and above involved in corruption cases can be probed and prosecuted without a prior nod from the authorities even if their case predates the top court’s related judgement in 2014. The judgement declared section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act invalid; this mandated that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) take prior permission before probing corruption cases against such officials. A five-judge Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said the provision in question was void from the very day of its insertion on September 11, 2003. Monday’s 106-page judgement held that Section 6A violated fundamental rights, and “once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, still born, unenforceable and non est.” “Declaration made by the Constitution Bench judgement in Dr. Subramanian Swamy case [of 2014] will have retrospective operation. Section 6A of the DSPE Act is not in force from the day of its insertion, i.e., September 11, 2003,” wrote Justice Vikram Nath, who authored the judgment for the five-judge Bench. The Court also answered the question about whether the striking down of the provision granting immunity would have a retrospective effect in view of rights protected under Article 20 of the Constitution, which provides for protection in respect of conviction for offences. Justice Nath also held that Article 20(1), which mandated that a person should only be convicted under a law that was in force at the time of the crime, had “no applicability or relevance to the validity or invalidity of Section 6A of the DSPE Act”. The 2014 verdict of the court was seen as a landmark one; it pointed out and eliminated the dichotomy within Section 6A, which effectively protected one class of officers, calling it directly destructive and contrary to the objectives and reasons of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. “Corruption is an enemy of [the] nation and tracking down a corrupt public servant, however high he may be, and punishing such a person is a necessary mandate under the PC [Prevention of Corruption] Act, 1988. The status or position of a public servant does not qualify the person from exemption from equal treatment,” the Judgement had said. In asserting the retrospective nature of the verdict, the Supreme Court has done well to leave no scope for tinkering when it comes to probing officials at senior levels and ensuring that both common and officially placed crime-doers are tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation. The Hindu’s Editorials India’s moment: on the G-20 Summit outcomes The old and the young: at the US Open The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz The Naismith Trophy is associated with which sport? Ice hockey Rugby Basketball Baseball To know the answer and to play the full quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 12 September 2023 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [Arrow]( [Open in browser]( [Mail icon]( [More newsletters]( SC says CBI does not need permission to probe pre-2014 Clearing the grey area around an invalidated amendment on Monday, [the Supreme Court said]( that senior government officers of the level of joint secretary and above involved in corruption cases can be probed and prosecuted without a prior nod from the authorities even if their case predates the top court’s related judgement in 2014. The judgement declared section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act invalid; this mandated that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) take prior permission before probing corruption cases against such officials. A five-judge Bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said the provision in question was void from the very day of its insertion on September 11, 2003. Monday’s 106-page judgement held that Section 6A violated fundamental rights, and “once a law is declared to be unconstitutional, being violative of Part-III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution, then it would be held to be void ab initio, still born, unenforceable and non est.” “Declaration made by the Constitution Bench judgement in Dr. Subramanian Swamy case [of 2014] will have retrospective operation. Section 6A of the DSPE Act is not in force from the day of its insertion, i.e., September 11, 2003,” wrote Justice Vikram Nath, who authored the judgment for the five-judge Bench. The Court also answered the question about whether the striking down of the provision granting immunity would have a retrospective effect in view of rights protected under Article 20 of the Constitution, which provides for protection in respect of conviction for offences. Justice Nath also held that Article 20(1), which mandated that a person should only be convicted under a law that was in force at the time of the crime, had “no applicability or relevance to the validity or invalidity of Section 6A of the DSPE Act”. The 2014 verdict of the court was seen as a landmark one; it pointed out and eliminated the dichotomy within Section 6A, which effectively protected one class of officers, calling it directly destructive and contrary to the objectives and reasons of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. “Corruption is an enemy of [the] nation and tracking down a corrupt public servant, however high he may be, and punishing such a person is a necessary mandate under the PC [Prevention of Corruption] Act, 1988. The status or position of a public servant does not qualify the person from exemption from equal treatment,” the Judgement had said. In asserting the retrospective nature of the verdict, the Supreme Court has done well to leave no scope for tinkering when it comes to probing officials at senior levels and ensuring that both common and officially placed crime-doers are tracked down by the same process of inquiry and investigation. The Hindu’s Editorials [Arrow][India’s moment: on the G-20 Summit outcomesÂ]( [Arrow][The old and the young: at the US OpenÂ]( The Hindu’s Daily News Quiz The Naismith Trophy is associated with which sport? - Ice hockey - Rugby - Basketball - Baseball To know the answer and to play the full quiz, [click here.]( Today’s Best Reads [[New Delhi Declaration reaffirms G-20 is body for economic issues, ‘not geopolitics’: China] New Delhi Declaration reaffirms G-20 is body for economic issues, ‘not geopolitics’: China]( [[Food prices are on the rise, but are our earnings keeping up? | Data Point video] Food prices are on the rise, but are our earnings keeping up? | Data Point video]( [[Mamata reshuffles Cabinet, Babul shunted out of Tourism department] Mamata reshuffles Cabinet, Babul shunted out of Tourism department]( [[G-20: What are the emissions-related commitments of the countries? | Explained] G-20: What are the emissions-related commitments of the countries? | Explained]( Copyright @ 2023, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( Manage your newsletter subscription preferences [here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](