Supreme Court Rules Section 6A Unconstitutional with Retrospective Effect in CBI v. R.R. Kishore Judgment
- NISHA KUMARI
- 11 June 2025
Discover how the Supreme Court of India’s 2023 judgment in CBI v. Dr. R.R. Kishore declared Section 6A of the DSPE Act unconstitutional and applied the ruling retrospectively, reshaping corruption investigations in India.
Introduction: A Landmark Ruling in Anti-Corruption Law
On 11th September 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in the case of CBI v. Dr. R.R. Kishore, significantly impacting how corruption cases involving senior public officials are investigated. The Court held that Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946—which required prior approval from the Central Government to investigate senior officers—was unconstitutional and applied this ruling retrospectively.
Background: What Was Section 6A of the DSPE Act?
Section 6A mandated that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) obtain government approval before investigating officers of the rank of Joint Secretary and above for corruption. Introduced to safeguard senior officials, the provision was often criticized for hindering independent investigations.
Case Origin and Legal Context
Who Filed the Petitions?
Two writ petitions were initially filed by:
Both challenged the validity of Section 6A, arguing it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees equality before the law.
Previous Related Case: Subramanian Swamy v. CBI
In this earlier case, a Constitution Bench had already declared Section 6A unconstitutional. However, the retrospective applicability of that judgment remained unclear—until now.
Facts of the CBI v. R.R. Kishore Case
In 2004, the CBI registered an FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and laid a trap to catch an accused accepting a bribe.
The accused argued the investigation was invalid due to lack of government sanction under Section 6A.
The CBI court rejected the discharge request, but the High Court allowed reinvestigation—only if approval was granted.
The CBI challenged this order, and the matter remained pending until the 2023 Supreme Court verdict.
Key Legal Issues Considered
1. Is prior sanction mandatory for prosecuting public servants under Section 197 of CrPC and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
2. Was the High Court justified in quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of CrPC?
3. Is there enough prima facie evidence to proceed under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 of the IPC and Sections 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
Supreme Court Judgment: Section 6A Is Void from the Start
Key Highlights of the Judgment
The Court ruled that any law declared void under Article 13(2) is invalid from its inception.
As Section 6A was added after the Constitution came into effect, it is considered null and void from the date of its creation (2003).
Section 6A was a procedural provision, and its removal does not violate Article 20(1), which protects against retrospective criminal punishment.
The judgment empowers the CBI to act without prior government approval in such cases.
Implications for Corruption Investigations in India
Impact on Public Servants
The Court clarified that no one can claim protection under a law that has been declared unconstitutional. This decision removes artificial safeguards that previously shielded senior officials from anti-corruption probes.
Reinforcing the Rule of Law
By striking down Section 6A, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle of equal accountability under rule of law and empowered independent investigations.
Conclusion: A Victory for Transparency and Accountability
The Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in CBI v. R.R. Kishore marks a turning point in India’s anti-corruption framework. By holding Section 6A unconstitutional with retrospective effect, the Court enhanced the powers of investigative agencies, removed administrative barriers, and promoted equal justice under law.
This ruling serves as a precedent for future corruption cases and highlights the Court’s commitment to transparency, accountability, and constitutional integrity.
