Prevention of Corruption Act: special Judges, investigation, sanction and the 2018 Amendment

1. Special Judges: sections 3 to 6

• Appointment (section 3). The Central or State Government may, by notification, appoint as many special Judges as necessary for an area or for a case or group of cases, to try offences under the Act and conspiracy, attempt or abetment of them. Only a person who is or has been a Sessions Judge, Additional Sessions Judge or Assistant Sessions Judge is qualified.
• Exclusive jurisdiction (section 4). These offences are triable by special Judges only, by the Judge for the area where the offence was committed or the Judge appointed for the case. He may also try any other offence with which the accused may be charged at the same trial.
• Time limit (section 4(4), substituted in 2018). The trial is to be held as far as practicable day to day, with an endeavour to finish within two years; if not, the Judge records reasons; extensions of up to six months at a time, but ordinarily not beyond four years in all.
• Procedure and powers (section 5). He takes cognizance without commitment; follows the procedure for warrant cases by Magistrates; may tender a pardon to an accomplice for a full and true disclosure; is deemed a Court of Session and the prosecutor a public prosecutor; may pass any sentence authorised by law; and exercises the powers of a District Judge under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 for attachment.
• Summary trial (section 6) of public servants for contravening special orders under section 12A of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, with a sentence up to one year.
• Appeal and revision (section 27) lie to the High Court as if the special Judge were a Court of Session.

The Act still refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Since 1 July 2024 those references are read as references to the corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, under its repeal and savings section.

2. Persons authorised to investigate: section 17

No police officer below the rank of:

• an Inspector of Police, in the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CBI);
• an Assistant Commissioner of Police, in the metropolitan areas of Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Ahmedabad and any other notified metropolitan area;
• a Deputy Superintendent of Police or equivalent, elsewhere,

may investigate an offence under the Act, or arrest without warrant, without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of the first class. Provisos: an Inspector authorised by the State Government by general or special order may also investigate; and an offence of illicit enrichment under section 13(1)(b) cannot be investigated without the order of an officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police. Section 18 lets such officers inspect bankers' books. In Karnataka the investigating officers are those of the Lokayukta police wing.

3. Prior approval: section 17A (inserted 2018)

No police officer may conduct any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence alleged against a public servant, where the offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by him in discharge of official functions, without the previous approval of the Central Government, the State Government or the authority competent to remove him, as the case may be. No approval is needed where the public servant is arrested on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage (a trap case). The authority must decide within three months, extendable by one month.

Section 17A revives, for all public servants, the protection the Supreme Court had struck down when it was given only to senior officers (the single directive in Vineet Narain, 1997, and section 6A of the DSPE Act in Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI, 2014). Its validity was challenged in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, 2026 INSC 55 (13 January 2026); the two judges differed, and the matter was placed before the Chief Justice for a larger bench. Earlier, in Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 INSC 41, two judges had differed on whether section 17A applies to offences committed before 26 July 2018. Both questions await a larger bench; state the section and the pending challenge, not a final answer.

4. Sanction for prosecution: section 19

• No court shall take cognizance of an offence under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 against a public servant without previous sanction of the Central Government, the State Government or the authority competent to remove him, as the case may be (save as provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013). Since 2018 sanction is needed also for a person who has ceased to hold office (Explanation). Bribe-giving under section 8 needs no sanction.
• Private complainants (2018 proviso). A person other than a police or investigating officer may seek sanction only after filing a complaint in court that has not been dismissed under the dismissal-of-complaint provision, and the public servant must be heard before sanction is given.
• Time limit. The authority shall endeavour to decide within three months, extendable by one month where legal consultation is needed. In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, 2012 INSC 59, (2012) 3 SCC 64 (the 2G case), the Court held that a citizen has the right to seek sanction and that the competent authority must decide the request within a time frame; delay defeats the Act.
• Curing defects (section 19(3) and (4)). No finding or sentence is reversed for absence of or error in sanction unless a failure of justice has occurred, and the court considers whether the objection could have been raised earlier. No stay of proceedings on that ground, and no revision against interlocutory orders.

5. Presumption, attachment and other provisions

• Section 20: once it is proved that the public servant accepted or obtained an undue advantage, it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he did so as a motive or reward under section 7, or without adequate consideration under section 11.
• Section 18A (2018): the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 applies to attachment and confiscation of property procured by an offence under the Act, with the special Judge in place of the District Judge, save as provided under the money laundering law.
• Section 16: in fixing fine, the court considers the value of the property obtained or the unexplained assets.

6. Evaluating the 2018 Amendment

Gains

• Bribe-giving is now a distinct offence (section 8), with a safety valve for those compelled who report within seven days.
• Corporate liability for bribery (sections 9 and 10), with an adequate procedures defence that encourages compliance programmes.
• Higher minimum sentences (three years for section 7, four for section 13).
• A time frame for trial (section 4(4)) and for sanction (section 19).
• Attachment and forfeiture (section 18A).
• Simpler drafting of section 13, removing the vague old section 13(1)(d), under which honest but mistaken decisions were sometimes prosecuted.

Criticisms

• Section 17A gives the Government a veto over the start of an inquiry, so the executive decides whether its own officers are investigated; the Supreme Court had twice struck down similar protection.
• The seven-day reporting window for coerced bribe-givers is short, and the threat of prosecution may discourage complainants from coming forward.
• Section 13(1)(d) is gone, so abuse of position to give a pecuniary advantage to a third party, without proof of a bribe, is no longer criminal misconduct as such.
• The 2018 hurdles on private complainants seeking sanction make citizen-initiated prosecutions harder.
• No protection or reward for whistle-blowers was built into the Act.

How this is examined

January 2026 and February 2025: the provisions on appointment, powers and procedure of special Judges (10 marks). June 2025: the officers authorised to investigate (10 marks). January 2026: evaluate the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (10 marks). Answer the special Judges question section by section (3, 4, 5, 6, 27). For investigation, add 17A and 18. For the evaluation, list the changes first, then gains and criticisms, and end on the pending challenge to section 17A.