The Retroactive Effect of Section 6A - Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr. RR Kishore

Introduction:

In a momentous development, a constitution bench of the Supreme Court has rendered a landmark verdict with far-reaching implications. The crux of the matter pertains to the retrospective effect of the 2014 judgment that declared Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, unconstitutional.

Background:

Section 6A of the DSPE Act mandated the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to seek prior sanction from the central government when investigating corruption cases involving officers of the rank of joint secretary and above. However, this provision was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India.

Issues:

The central issue before the constitution bench was the retrospective application of this ruling, particularly whether it would apply to pending cases. Additionally, there was a significant debate over the interplay between Section 6A and Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution, which safeguards individuals from retroactive punishment.

Findings and Rationale:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nath, speaking on behalf of the bench, articulated the following conclusions:

1. The invalidated Section 6A was procedural in nature and did not establish new offenses or penalties.

2. Article 20(1) of the Constitution does not bear relevance to the constitutionality of Section 6A, neither in terms of its validity nor invalidity.

3. The 2014 declaration by the constitution bench concerning the unconstitutionality of Section 6A will have retrospective effect, rendering this section non-operative from its date of insertion, i.e., 11.09.2003.

Conclusion:

This judgment comes after extensive deliberations and a period of reserved judgment since November of the previous year. It addresses the critical question of whether an individual can be deprived of statutory immunity through the retrospective operation of a judgment that strikes down an immunity-granting provision. This issue was referred to the five-judge bench in March 2016.

The case at hand emerged from an arrest made under the Delhi Police Special Establishment Act, 1946, without prior sanction, which led to a legal challenge on the grounds of Section 6A violation. The verdict provides much-needed clarity on the application of the 2014 ruling to pending cases, resolving a longstanding legal conundrum.

Disclaimer: This post is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.