🔍 What Happened

A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on a crucial question under anti-corruption law — whether courts can take cognisance of corruption cases against public servants without prior government sanction.

🧾 Summary

In a significant development affecting corruption prosecutions, the Supreme Court could not arrive at a unanimous view on whether prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory before a trial court can take cognisance of an offence against a public servant.

One group of judges held that prior sanction is compulsory, as it protects honest officers from harassment and frivolous cases. According to this view, without sanction, courts should not proceed even if strong evidence exists.

However, the other judges took the opposite view, stating that sanction is required only before trial begins, not at the initial stage when courts merely take cognisance. They warned that making sanction mandatory at the very start could delay justice and shield corrupt officials.

Because of this disagreement, the issue will now be referred to a larger bench for a final and authoritative decision.

🟢 Public Takeaway

This case affects how easily corruption cases against government officials can move forward. If prior sanction is made mandatory at the start, corruption trials may slow down; if not, accountability could improve. A final decision will shape the future of anti-corruption law in India.