In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court declared on Monday that its 2014 verdict in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs Director CBI, which invalidated Section 6A of the 1946 Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act), would be given retrospective effect. This verdict pertains to the matter of CBI v. RR Kishore, Bar and Bench reported
Section 6A had mandated that prior sanction from the Central government was obligatory before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) could initiate investigations into corruption cases involving Union government officials from the rank of Joint-Secretary and above.
However, in the 2014 judgment in the Subramanian Swamy case, the apex court struck down Section 6A (1) on the grounds that it contravened Article 14 (right to equality) of the Indian Constitution.
In the 2014 ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized the impropriety of drawing distinctions between officials based on their status and rank.
Notably, the 2014 ruling did not address the status of ongoing cases under CBI investigation.
Subsequently, a constitution bench was constituted to ascertain whether the 2014 judgment would impact pending corruption cases.
A bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S Oka, Vikram Nath, and JK Maheshwari has now answered this inquiry in the affirmative, affirming that the 2014 judgment would have a retrospective effect.
The Court clarified that Section 6A would be considered as never having been in force.
However, the bench clarified that it has not passed judgments or heard appeals on the merits of individual cases.
“The judgment in Subramanian Swamy will have a retrospective effect. We have not decided the other issues or heard the appeals on merits, which will be heard by respective benches,” the Court stated.
The judgment, which was reserved on November 3 of the preceding year, pertained to the following legal questions:
(i) Whether Section 6A of the DSPE Act is a procedural provision or introduces conviction or sentence?
(ii) Whether Article 20(1) of the Constitution is relevant to the declaration of Section 6A as unconstitutional?
(iii) Whether the declaration of Section 6A as unconstitutional will have retroactive implications?
The Court has determined that Section 6A forms an integral part of the legal procedure exclusively applicable to senior government officials.
Furthermore, it concluded that Article 20(1) of the Constitution does not bear on the constitutionality of Section 6A of the DSPE Act.
Article 20(1) stipulates that no individual can be convicted of any offense except for a breach of the law in force at the time of the commission of the act.
In the present case, the accused was apprehended while accepting a bribe. The accused had contested the prosecution on grounds of lacking authorization. The Delhi High Court had previously instructed the central agency to secure the requisite approvals and recommence the inquiry.
While the challenge to the High Court’s decision was pending in the Supreme Court, the 2014 judgment in the Subramanian Swamy case was delivered.
Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the Central government, contended that Article 20 does not encompass procedural provisions.
Senior Advocate Arvind Datar, representing the accused (RR Kishore), contended that Section 6A of the DSPE Act had constituted immunity not only from conviction but also from investigation. He maintained that such procedural safeguards fall within the purview of Article 20.
He further argued that, after a provision is invalidated, the Court must specify whether its effects are prospective or retrospective.
During the proceedings, Justice Kaul had previously suggested that the courts could provide clarification on this aspect as necessary.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, representing the CBI, argued that Section 6A did not constitute immunity against trial, which could commence without authorization.
Source,Bar and Bench