The third question is whether the declaration of Section 6A of the DSPE Act as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution would have retrospective effect or would it possibly be effective from the date of declaration of unconstitutionality. Will be applicable?” The Supreme Court said that Section 6 A. This act is only part of the process as a way of providing protection to senior public servants and does not add any new offense or increase the punishment.
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the provision of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (DSPE) Act, under which officers of the rank of joint secretary and above in the central government, were repealed with effect from the date of its enactment on September 11, 2003. will go. The Center’s approval was made mandatory before initiating investigations in corruption cases. In a unanimous judgement, a five-judge constitution bench headed by Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul said the Supreme Court’s May 6, 2014 judgment would apply with retrospective effect. Under this judgment, the Supreme Court struck down Section 6-A(1) of the DSPE Act, 1946, which provided immunity to officials in cases of corruption.
The bench said that Parliament has amended the law and inserted Section 17A in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with effect from July 26, 2018, which provides for the requirement of sanction for prosecution, but the status of public servants. Without limitation. In a way, the protection afforded to government officials in cases under the Anti-Corruption Act was restored by the Center through an amendment in 2018 and the provision remains on the statute books. The bench consisted of Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice A.S. Oka, Justice Vikramanath and Justice J.K. Maheshwari was also involved. The bench delivered its judgment on the issue of whether the Constitution Bench’s pronouncement on 6 May 2014 could be applied under Article 20 of the Constitution, which declared Section 6A of the DSPE Act unconstitutional. Is.
Article 20 of the Constitution provides protection against punishment for offences. The Supreme Court in its May 2014 judgment invalidated Section 6A(1) of the Act and held that the exemption in Section 6A tended to protect corrupt persons. In its judgment delivered on Monday, the bench said it is quite clear that once a law is declared unconstitutional as violative of Part 3 of the Constitution, then Article 13(2) of the Constitution. Under and in view of its interpretation through official announcements. , shall be deemed “repealed ab initio” and unenforceable. “Thus, the declaration made by the Constitution Bench in Subramanian Swamy’s case (on May 6, 2014) will have retrospective effect,” the bench said in its 106-page order.
“Section 6A of the DSPE Act shall be deemed to have come into force on the date of its insertion i.e. September 11, 2003.” The Supreme Court said that in its May 2014 judgment, the Constitution Bench had not decided whether Section 6A(1) of the Act had retroactive effect as violative of Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution. will have or is likely to have an effect. It will take effect from It considered three questions which needed to be considered – whether Section 6A of the DSPE Act is part of the process or whether it provides punishment or penalty, whether Article 20(1) of the Constitution makes Section 6A non- Sufficient to be declared constitutional. have any effect or relevance in the context. The third question is whether the declaration of Section 6A of the DSPE Act as unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution will have retrospective effect or will be applicable from the date when it was declared unconstitutional. Is?The Supreme Court said that Section 6A of the Act is only part of the process of providing protection to senior public servants and does not add any new offense or increase the punishment.
abandonment: Prabhasakshi has not edited this news. This news is published by PTI’s oral feed.