https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461190 In a private corruption complaint against a high constitutional functionary, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was treated as a mandatory pre-investigation filter, and the complainant was held competent to seek that approval. The Governor's independent discretion was upheld on the basis that Cabinet advice could be tainted by apparent bias where sanction was sought against the Chief Minister, and the file materials were sufficient to support the decision. Reference to Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was treated as premature and did not invalidate the approval, which was read as operating only under Section 17A. The materials were found to disclose a prima facie role warranting investigation. en-us Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Mar 2025 09:52:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461190 In a private corruption complaint against a high constitutional functionary, prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was treated as a mandatory pre-investigation filter, and the complainant was held competent to seek that approval. The Governor's independent discretion was upheld on the basis that Cabinet advice could be tainted by apparent bias where sanction was sought against the Chief Minister, and the file materials were sufficient to support the decision. Reference to Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was treated as premature and did not invalidate the approval, which was read as operating only under Section 17A. The materials were found to disclose a prima facie role warranting investigation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=461190