Rank-based prior approval for corruption probes was struck down as arbitrary and inconsistent with Article 14 equality.

Section 6-A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was examined under Article 14 for requiring prior Central Government approval before inquiry or investigation into specified corruption offences against senior Central Government officials. The Court found that rank-based classification created a special class of accused public servants without a rational nexus to the anti-corruption object of ensuring fair and effective investigation. The threshold approval requirement was held to impede preliminary inquiry, risk disclosure, and confer an impermissible shield on a favoured class. The provision, and the corresponding insertion under the Central Vigilance Commission Act, were declared invalid to that extent as violative of Article 14.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 6-A(1) of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, requiring prior approval of the Central Government for inquiry or investigation into certain corruption offences against specified senior Central Government officials and connected officers, is constitutionally valid under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The provision created a special class of accused public servants on the basis of rank and status in service and subjected inquiry and investigation to prior approval of the Central Government. The classification was examined against the settled Article 14 test of reasonable classification, namely, intelligible differentia and rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The object of the prevention-of-corruption regime is to detect and punish corruption effectively and ensure independent, fair and unhampered investigation. A status-based barrier at the threshold of inquiry or investigation was found to be unrelated to that object because persons accused of the same corruption offences cannot be treated differently merely by reason of their position. The provision was also held to impede preliminary inquiry and effective investigation, to risk disclosure, and to confer an impermissible shield on a favoured class. The earlier invalidation of the executive Single Directive was treated as highly relevant in assessing the same vice in legislative form.

Conclusion: Section 6-A(1) was held invalid and violative of Article 14, and the corresponding insertion made by Section 26(c) of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 was also declared invalid to that extent.

Final Conclusion: The constitutional challenge succeeded, the impugned prior-approval requirement for investigation of specified corruption offences stood struck down, and the writ petitions were allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory classification that shields a category of public servants from inquiry or investigation into corruption offences on the basis of rank alone, without a rational nexus to the anti-corruption object of the law, is arbitrary and unconstitutional under Article 14 because it undermines equal treatment and effective investigation.

---