“On the other hand, it advances public mischief and protects the crime-doer. The provision thwarts an independent, unhampered, unbiased, efficient and fearless inquiry / investigation to track down the corrupt public servants,” it said.
The apex court said 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.
“Section 6-A also suffers from the vice of classifying offenders differently for treatment thereunder for inquiry and investigation of offences, according to their status in life.
Every person accused of committing the same offence is to be dealt with in the same manner in accordance with law, which is equal in its application to everyone,” it said.
“There is no rational basis to classify the two sets of public servants differently on the ground that one set of officers is decision-making officers and not the other set of officers. If there is an accusation of bribery, graft, illegal gratification or criminal misconduct against a public servant, then we fail to understand as to how the status of offender is of any relevance,” it said.
The bench said the signature tune in its earlier judgement in Vineet Narain case is, ‘However high you may be, the law is above you'. “We reiterate the same. Section 6-A offends this signature tune and effectively Article 14,” it said.
“Corruption is an enemy of the nation and tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing such persons is a necessary mandate of the PC Act, 1988.
“It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6-A because the goal of law in the PC Act, 1988 is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences,” the bench said.
