The Andhra Pradesh High Court has declared unconstitutional a 1996 government memo that required Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) officials to obtain prior sanction from the Chief Minister before investigating officers from the All India Services or heads of departments. The Court concluded that such instructions violated established legal principles and hindered the fight against corruption.
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Lottery Tie-Breaker Clause in Tender, Dismisses Challenge
The memo in question, No.404/SC/D/96-1 dated May 6, 1996, directed the Director-General of ACB to submit confidential reports regarding these officers to the Chief Secretary, who would then seek orders from the Chief Minister. The memo effectively restricted the ACB from initiating traps, enquiries, or registering cases without political clearance.
Background and Arguments
The writ petition was filed by C. Narayana, who argued that the memo provided unjust protection to IAS officers and department heads, creating a safe haven for corrupt practices. It was contended that this differential treatment between IAS and non-IAS officers was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri P.V. Krishnaiah, emphasized that the memo discouraged the ACB from acting independently and encouraged misuse of power without fear of legal consequences.
On the other hand, the state government, represented by Smt. S. Pranathi, argued that the memo was introduced to correct inconsistencies in earlier instructions from 1983 and align them with the Andhra Pradesh Government Business Rules. The state also maintained that according to Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, prior sanction is necessary only for prosecution—not for investigation.
Court’s Findings and Reference to Supreme Court Ruling
The division bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati cited the landmark Supreme Court decision in Vineet Narayan v. Union of India (AIR 1998 SC 889), which made a clear distinction between investigation and prosecution in corruption cases.
Read Also:- Rape Is Not Mere Physical Assault, Granting Bail Must Consider Societal Interests: Andhra Pradesh High Court
“Where the accusation of corruption is based on direct evidence… the level or status of the offender is irrelevant,” the Supreme Court had observed in that case.
The High Court noted that executive orders contradicting this principle are unconstitutional. It ruled that the 1996 memo, being inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s guidance and the Prevention of Corruption Act, could not be sustained.
The High Court concluded that:
“In view of the observations made in the decision referred to above and the language employed in Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.”
Read Also:- Andhra Pradesh HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Sexual Harassment Case, Citing Investigation Needs
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the memo was rendered void and inoperative. The Court made it clear that anti-corruption agencies do not need the Chief Minister’s approval to begin investigations against high-ranking officials.
Case Details:
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO: 1550/2009
Case Title: C.narayana v. State Of AP and Others
![[NDPS Act] Mere Absence of Recovery Not Enough for Bail if Nexus with Narcotic Network Exists: Delhi HC](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fs3.courtbook.in%2F2025%2F03%2Fndpc-act-1.webp&w=3840&q=40)
