The Supreme Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the petition challenging the 2018 amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) [Centre for Public Interest Litigation v Union of India].

A Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and KV Viswanathan reserved the order after hearing advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner, a non-profit named Centre for Public Interest Litigation (CPIL) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta for the Central government.

"We heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Solicitor General for respondent yesterday as well as today. Order reserved," the Court said.

CPIL moved the Court challenging the introduction of Section 17A and the changes made to Section 13 of the PC Act. 

Section 17A bars police officers from conducting any inquiry or investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under if it is related to "any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties" without prior approval of the Central or the State government.

Through the same amendment, Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act was repealed. The repealed provision criminalised actions where a public servant abuses their position to obtain a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for themselves or others, or acts without public interest.

Mehta defended the changes today, arguing that a provision which protects a particular class of persons by way of a screening mechanism is not, per se, arbitrary.

He highlighted the difference between the approval for investigation under Section 17A and the sanction for prosecution needed under Section 19.

"Suppose I am the officer, and approval [for investigation] under 17A is needed. My Ministry would have the wherewithal and knowledge, etc. Therefore, 17A is with my ministry....After the approval, investigation takes place, evidence is collected, and a chargesheet is framed. It goes before the sanctioning authority under Section 19 for prosecution. That doesn't go to my Ministry," Mehta stressed.

SG Mehta further said that according to the petitioner, all judges, ministers and lawyers are corrupt.

"According to him (Bhushan), all judges, all ministers and all lawyers are corrupt. You can’t live in any country with such skepticism. There are good people," he saijd.

In his rejoinder arguments, Bhushan reiterated that if a balance has to be made between protecting honest officers and ensuring corrupt officers do not get away scot free or are not protected by their political masters, then guidelines can be laid down by the Court.

Read previous arguments in the case here.

[Read Live Coverage]