Supreme Court: Constitution of India, 1950—Art. 14— Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946—Sec. 6-A — Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003—Sec. 26(c)—Offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act—Approval by Central Govt. to conduct investigation or inquiry by CBI where allegations relate to officers of the level of Joint Secretary and above—Constitutional validity of Section 6-A of the DSPE Act and Section 26(c) of the CVC Act—Moot question—Whether arbitrariness and unreasonableness or manifest arbitrariness and unreasonableness, being facets of Article 14 of the Constitution are available or not as grounds to invalidate a legislation—Courts approach—Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status—HELD—Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown—The two dimensions of Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering legislation invalid are now well recognized and these are (i) discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid classification and (ii) excessive delegation of powers; conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders — if such conferment is without any guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution—If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial—Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under the PC Act, 1988— The previous approval from the Government necessarily required under Section 6-A would result in indirectly putting to notice the officers to be investigated before commencement of investigation—Every public servant against whom there is reasonable suspicion of commission of crime or there are allegations of an offence under the PC Act, 1988 has to be treated equally and similarly under the law and any distinction made between them on the basis of their status or position in service for the purposes of inquiry / investigation is nothing but an artificial one and offends Article 14—Section 6— A(1), which requires approval of the Central Government to conduct any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed under the PC Act, 1988 where such allegation relates to (a) the employees of the Central Government of the level of Joint Secretary and above and (b) such officers as are appointed by the Central Government in corporations established by or under any Central Act, government companies, societies and local authorities owned or controlled by the Government, is invalid and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution—As a necessary corollary, the provision contained in Section 26 (c) of the Act 45 of 2003 to that extent is also declared invalid. R.M. LODHA, CJI, A.K. PATNAIK, SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, DIPAK MISRA, FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ. 2014 VI AD (S.C.) 1
Posted on: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:17:24 +0000