NEW DELHI: In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court on Tuesday gave the CBI a free hand to inquire into corruption charges against top bureaucrats by striking down a law that mandated the agency to seek the Centre’s nod before investigating officers of the rank of joint secretary and above.Delivering the judgment which will leave the bureaucracy anguished, a five-judge constitution bench comprising Chief Justice R M Lodha and Justices A K Patnaik, S J Mukhopadhaya, Dipak Misra and F M I Kalifulla unanimously ruled that Section 6A in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act was invalid as it seriously violated the fundamental right to equality before law guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution."The aim and object of investigation is ultimately to search for truth and any law that impedes that object may not stand the test of Article 14," said Justice Lodha, who wrote the judgment for the bench.The bench said corruption was the enemy of the nation and the Prevention of Corruption Act mandated tracking down the corrupt and punishing them.This is the third time the apex court has overturned a legislative action to fetter the CBI from inquiring against senior babus. On December 18, 1997, the court had struck down the ‘single directive’ provision in Vineet Narain judgment. However, the "shield" for bureaucrats was restored when the Centre promulgated an ordinance on August 25, 1998.While SC’s intervention saw the provision deleted from the ordinance, the NDA government on September 12, 2003 inserted Section 6A in the DSPE Act, which governs the CBI, to debar the agency from inquiring against top bureaucrats for corruption charges without prior permission of the Centre.It was challenged in 2005 by Subramanian Swamy and NGO ‘Centre for Public Interest Litigation’.Opinion on the ‘single directive’ has been sharply split with senior officials as well as many others arguing that it was a necessary cushion against malicious prosecution and will help swift decision-making by encouraging the bureaucracy to exercise its discretion in public interest.However, CBI and anti-corruption activists have slammed it as a big hurdle for investigations into charges of graft, and the view has been strengthened by the way governments at the Centre and states have denied sanction to prosecute officers facing serious charges.The SC bench on Tuesday said, "It is difficult to justify the classification which has been made in Section 6A because the goal of law in PC Act, 1988, is to meet corruption cases with a very strong hand and all public servants are warned through such a legislative measure that corrupt public servants have to face very serious consequences."The court said the classification under Section 6A neither eliminated public mischief nor achieved positive good. "On the other hand, it advances public mischief and protects crime-doer. The provision thwarts an independent, unhampered, unbiased, efficient and fearless inquiry/investigation to track down corrupt public servants," it said.The court said surprise element of discreet inquiry into corruption charges against a top bureaucrat was lost through Section 6A as seeking permission from the Centre would virtually serve as a warning for the corrupt officer even prior to commencement of investigation."Moreover, if the CBI is not even allowed to verify complaints by preliminary enquiry (PE), how can the case move forward? A PE is intended to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out or not. If the CBI is prevented from holding a preliminary inquiry, at the very threshold, a fetter is put to enable the CBI to gather relevant material," the bench said."As a matter of fact, the CBI is not able to collect material even to move the government for the purpose of obtaining previous approval from the central government," the court said.Immediately after the court pronounced the judgment, senior advocate Anil Divan and advocate Prashant Bhushan congratulated the court for the bold judgment and said, "The court has given some freedom to the ‘caged parrot’." SC had termed the CBI a "caged parrot" given the overbearing influence of government in its functioning it noticed while monitoring the probe into coal scamRight in the beginning of the judgment, the court asked, "Can classification be made creating a class of government officers of the level of joint secretary and above level and certain officials in public sector undertakings for the purpose of inquiry/investigation into an offence alleged to have been committed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?"Can a classification be made on the basis of the status/position of the public servant for the purpose of inquiry/investigation into the allegation of graft which amounts to an offence under the PC Act, 1988? Can the legislature lay down different principles for investigation/inquiry into the allegation of corruption for the public servants who hold a particular position?"Answering the questions, the five-judge bench said, "The classification which is made in Section 6A on the basis of status in government service is not permissible under Article 14 as it defeats the purpose of finding prima facie truth into the allegations of graft, which amounts to be an offence under the PC Act, 1988."Can there be sound differentiation between corrupt public servants based on their status? Surely not, because irrespective of their status or position, corrupt public servants are corrupters of public power. Corrupt public servants, whether high or low, are birds of the same feather and must be confronted with the process of investigation and inquiry equally. Based on the position or status in service, no distinction can be made between public servants against whom there are allegations amounting to an offence under PC Act, 1988."