Bengaluru: Whenever the law is amended, in the very provision of law which is amended, a declaration by the Legislature as to whether the law is prospective, retroactive or retrospective and its application to pending enquiry, inquiry, investigation or case will go a long way in reducing certain types of litigation, avoiding delay and improving the administration of justice.
Given the huge number of cases that have gone up to High Courts and Supreme Court, and the huge number of dissenting verdicts on the question of the prospective or retrospective or retroactive application of law, the court is flagging the issue as it sincerely believes that the time has come for the Legislature, Law Commissions, Jurists, Bar Councils, Lawyers, Academicians and all the stakeholders to engage in meaningful discussion and deliberation on the issue and find a solution, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde pointed out in his order passed on October 17. The judge also quashed the investigation based on the FIR registered by the Lokayukta police in 2024 against the petitioners with regard to misappropriation/misconduct that occurred prior to July 26, 2018, ie, prior to the amendment to Section 17A. The Karnataka High Court has expressed this opinion in a recent judgement while coming across a situation wherein an amendment to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act mandating prior sanction from the competent authority to proceed against public servants was the focal point for consideration.
The procedure contemplated under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act applies to all inquiry, enquiry or investigation relating to the matters covered under Section 17A of the said Act if the inquiry, enquiry or investigation commences after July 26, 2018. Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act has no application if the inquiry, enquiry or investigation relating to the matters covered under Section 17A of the said Act commenced before July 26, 2018. Since the FIR in the present case was registered after July 26, 2018, in relation to instances prior to the amendment, the investigating officer shall seek necessary approval as required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The judge further added this in his order.