Recently, the Supreme Court of India made a significant ruling regarding the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.
The ruling concerns the requirement of central government sanction for the CBI to prosecute senior government officers.

The provision in the DSPE Act, 1946, mandating central government sanction for CBI prosecution of officers of Joint Secretary rank and above, is nullified.
- This nullification is retroactive, effective from September 11, 2003, when the provision was introduced.
The ruling is based on a 2014 judgment in the Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India case, which declared Section 6A (1) of the DSPE Act invalid and retrospective.
The court determined that when a law is declared unconstitutional, it becomes void ab initio, unenforceable, and non est in view of Article 13(2) of the Constitution.
- Article 13(2) prohibits the state from making laws that abridge constitutional rights and declares such laws void.

Section 6A (1) required central government approval for investigations into corruption allegations against specific government employees.
The court clarified that Section 6A (1) was a procedural safeguard and did not introduce new offenses or penalties.
Article 20(1) was cited, which restricts convictions and penalties for offenses not in force at the time of the act.

The ruling discussed the historical safeguards for government servants from prosecution.
The Single Directive, issued by the central government in 1969, required prior sanction for investigations against certain civil servants but was invalidated in 1997.
Section 6A, similar to the Single Directive, was inserted into the DSPE Act in 2003 but was invalidated by the 2014 judgment.
Section 17A was introduced in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in 2018, providing protection to government servants without classification.

CBI sources consider this ruling as the resolution of a pending matter regarding a case where prior sanction was not obtained.
Legal experts believe the judgment has the potential to reopen cases where government sanction for investigation was denied between 2003 and 2014.

The Supreme Court’s 2014 judgment declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act invalid.
- Section 6A required prior permission for investigating corruption cases involving senior government officials.
Section 6A was deemed void from its insertion date on September 11, 2003.
- This means that senior government officials involved in corruption cases before the 2014 judgment cannot claim the protection of prior sanction.
The judgment clarified that Article 20(1), which pertains to conviction under a law in force at the time of the crime, does not apply to the validity or invalidity of Section 6A.
Section 6A had granted immunity from CBI preliminary inquiries to officers of the rank of joint secretary and above.
- The 2014 Constitution Bench had found this provision in violation of the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
- It was noted that Section 6A hindered efforts to combat corruption among senior bureaucrats by shielding them, contrary to the objectives of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The judgment emphasized that tracking down corrupt public servants, regardless of their status or position, is essential.
It highlighted that no one should be exempted from equal treatment under the law, as corruption is detrimental to the nation.

The CBI operates under The Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, 1946.
It is required to obtain the consent of the concerned state government before initiating an investigation within a state.
Section 6 of The DSPE Act states that CBI members cannot exercise powers and jurisdiction in a state without the consent of that state’s government.

State governments can provide either case-specific or general consent to the CBI.
- General consent is typically given by states to facilitate the CBI’s investigation of corruption cases involving central government employees within their jurisdictions.
- CBI can initiate investigations assuming general consent has been given.
In the absence of general consent, CBI must seek state government consent for each individual case, even for minor actions.

Historically, most states granted general consent to the CBI.
However, since 2015, several states have started withdrawing this consent.
States that have withdrawn consent include Punjab, Rajasthan, West Bengal, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Kerala, Mizoram, and Meghalaya.
States withdrew consent alleging that the central government was using the CBI to target the opposition unfairly.

CBI doesn’t require permission to probe pre-2014 cases: SC