Justice BV Nagarathna urges youth to shun anything acquired by their parents through corrupt means

Supreme Court judge, Justice BV Nagarathna has urged the youth and the children of our country to shun anything acquired beyond the known sources of income by their parents and guardians rather than being beneficiaries of the same. 

"This would be of a seminal service rendered by them not only towards good governance but also to the Nation," Justice Nagarathna has said.

Justice Nagarathna has referred to the judgment of Shobha Suresh Jumani vs. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property, wherein the Supreme Court has taken judicial notice of the fact that because of the mad race of becoming rich and acquiring properties overnight or because of the ostentatious or vulgar show of wealth by a few or because of change of environment in the society by adoption of materialistic approach, there is cancerous growth of corruption which has affected the moral standards of the people and all forms of governmental administration.

"Corruption is a result of greed and envy which give rise to an unhealthy competition to be acquisitive of material assets beyond known sources of income. A person may compete with another so as to portray materialistic superiority. This may result in acquiring wealth illegally. One’s attitude of greed and envy ought to be curbed and erased from one’s mind, otherwise corruption and bribery resulting in acquisition of wealth beyond the known sources of income cannot be reduced nor removed from our governance. One of the ways in which such tendencies could be curbed is to develop and enhance a spiritual bent of mind resulting in detachment from materialistic possessions and thereby, inter alia, focusing on service to the Nation," Justice Nagarathna has further observed.

Justice Nagarathna made these observations in a separate judgment authored by her as the Supreme Court yesterday delivered a split verdict while deciding a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Under the said section, no police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the authority prescribed therein.

Justice KV Vishwanathan has held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 inserted by virtue of Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 is constitutionally valid, subject to the condition that grant or refusal of the approval by the competent authority mentioned therein will depend on the recommendation of the Lokpal/Lokayukta (in case of States) respectively in accordance with the reasoning set out in the body of the judgment. He has further said that the object of incorporating Section 17A of the Act was certainly not to condone official acts done for improper purposes or for extraneous considerations, but to protect bona fide recommendations and decisions taken by officials and bureaucrats.

On the other hand, Justice BV Nagarathna has held that Section 17A of the Act is struck down as it is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as it seeks to protect only those public servants who have the responsibility of making a recommendation or taking a decision in the discharge of their official duties which are limited to the officers above a particular level whether in the Union or State Governments or any other Authority. It is Justice Nagarathna's view that Section 17A is invalidated by the arbitrariness in its manner of operation, by foreclosing the possibility of even a bare inquiry/enquiry/investigation without prior approval, under the garb of being prejudicial, leading to the likelihood of corrupt public servants of a particular level and higher being shielded, which is impermissible and contrary to the objects of the Act as well as rule of law.

Case Title: CENTRE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION vs. UNION OF INDIA

Bench: Justices Nagarathna and Vishwanathan

Judgment Date: January 13, 2026