<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2014 (5) TMI 783 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247856</link>
    <description>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.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 10:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 783 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247856</link>
      <description>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.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247856</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>