What is the

for officials about?

What is the context?

What is the Rajasthan government’s rationale?

What is the new ground it covers?

On September 7, the Rajasthan government passed an executive order that it now wants to enact into law. This amends Sections 156 and Section 190 of the CrPC, to require prior sanction from the state or Centre, for probing corrupt activities of serving or retired public servants, magistrates and judges. This has been widely criticised by opposition parties, legal experts and the media for aiming to protect officials at the cost of accountability and free speech.Starting the prosecution of senior officials has always required prior sanction from the government. Earlier, a ‘single directive’ protected officials of the rank of joint secretary or above from being prosecuted without government approval, the logic being that these decision-making jobs needed some protection to be able to work freely. However, now the question is whether even a preliminary investigation of such corruption requires sanction, and whether the police or courts can even initiate such a probe when they have clinching reason to do so. Section 156 and 190 deal with the power of the police to investigate offences, and the power of magistrates to take cognisance and order inquiries. If the Rajasthan government has its way, all public servants, which also includes the CM and cabinet, can be insulated from investigation for 180 days (after which sanction is assumed to be given).The Supreme Court undid the single directive in 1997 in the Vineet Narain case, and in 2014, it struck down the distinction between senior and junior officials to say that the CBI did not need prior sanction to investigate. It has also held that the procedure with regard to prior sanction must be construed very narrowly, and should ideally be considered at the time of trial, rather than the lodging of the complaint.The government says this law will allow officials to function without fear, since these provisions cause “mental harassment”. It claims that between 2013 and 2017, 73% of cases against officials were baseless. Many governments have felt that excessive oversight and suspicion, and the prospect of frivolous complaints can make it harder to take decisions, and make civil servants risk-averse. They have sought to reinstate protections and prior restraints for officials, even when the courts have diluted them. Maharashtra has a bill that bars investigation or prosecution without prior sanction. There has been a central bill with amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act, pending since 2013, which includes prior sanction. But this is the most extreme version by far. The timeframe for the sanction is set at three months in Maharashtra’s bill (which is being contested in the Supreme Court). In the Rajasthan bill, it is set at six months. This is seen as tilting the balance too far away from transparency, making it easier for wrongdoing to be covered up, once an errant official is alerted to a possible probe.This is the first time that mere disclosure of alleged wrongdoing has been held to be a punishable offence. Publishing or disclosing identifying information about any official against whom proceedings are pending is now an offence. Section 228B says that anyone who breaks this rule can be jailed for up to two years and/or fined – which effectively gags the media from informing the public about any ongoing corruption scandal.