Youth Must Shun Wealth Generated By Their Parents Through Corruption: Justice BV Nagarathna

To curb the evil of corruption, Justice BV Nagarathna of the Supreme Court appealed to the youth of the country to shun wealth generated by their parents through corrupt means.

“The youth and children of this country ought 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 seminal service rendered by them, not only towards governance, but also to the nation”, she said.

She observed, “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.”

The observations were made by Justice BV Nagarathna in her opinion declaring Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018 as unconstitutional.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan delivered a split verdict today in the plea filed by Centre for Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutionality of the provision.

In her judgment, Justice Nagarathna relied on various previous judgments and observed that corruption must be rooted out in its entirety.

“Corruption is anathema to rule of law and to the spirit of the Constitution and to good governance. There is a fundamental incongruence between the existence of corruption in the country and the transformative vision of our Constitution, the rights it protects and the preambular values it espouses. The existence and persistence of corruption in the country functions as a dire threat to the country's democracy, potential for development, economic stability and the very fabric of mutual trust and cooperation that keeps our equality functioning”, she said.

Justice Nagarathna noted that even a single act of corruption can have a cascading impact on multiple stakeholders and on every citizen whose faith in government and its institutions is eroded, often resulting in denial of good governance in accordance with the rule of law.

She observed that corruption widens existing inequalities by affecting the delivery of critical services to the most vulnerable and deserving sections of society, and fosters cultures of complacency, inefficiency and lethargy within institutions, particularly at higher levels of decision-making.

She said that no form of clemency can be shown to those who indulge in corruption, regardless of its perceived magnitude. She further highlighted that the judgments have amply cautioned against an approach driven by zeal alone without examining the substance of allegations.

She referred to an earlier decision of the Court in Shoba Suresh v. Appellate Tribunal, Forfeited Property, where judicial notice was taken of the “mad race” to become rich overnight, ostentatious display of wealth and a materialistic social environment contributing to a cancerous growth of corruption affecting moral standards and government administration.

Justice Nagarathna observed that corruption is a result of greed and envy, leading to unhealthy competition to acquire material assets beyond known sources of income. It noted that such attitudes must be curbed and erased, failing which corruption and bribery cannot be reduced or removed from governance.

Justice Nagarathna said that one way to curb these tendencies is to develop a spiritual bent of mind, resulting in detachment from materialistic possessions and a focus on service to the nation.

On the legal issue before the Court, Justice Nagarathna held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unconstitutional and must be struck down.

Justice Viswanathan, however, disagreed and upheld the constitutionality of Section 17A by reading it down. He held that the question of prior sanction for investigation must be decided by an independent authority free from executive control, namely the Lokpal or the Lokayukta, and not by the government.

In view of the split verdict, the matter has been directed to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Bench to decide the issue.

Case no. – W.P. (C) No. 1373/2018

Case Title – Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India