Overview
- A two-judge bench delivered divergent opinions on the 2018 provision that requires prior approval before investigating public servants for official decisions.
- Justice B.V. Nagarathna struck down Section 17A as unconstitutional, saying the approval bar forecloses inquiries and shields the corrupt.
- Justice K.V. Viswanathan upheld the law but read it down to require an independent gatekeeper, directing that sanction decisions rest with the Lokpal or state Lokayuktas.
- Both opinions rejected leaving approval solely with the political executive, though they differed on whether the provision should survive with independent screening.
- The challenge was led by CPIL, which cited earlier Supreme Court precedents against executive control, while the Union defended the filter as protection against frivolous cases and policy paralysis; the matter now awaits assignment by Chief Justice Surya Kant.