Single directive

Q&A

Why is “single directive” a violation of equality before law, according to a recent Supreme Court ruling? 

Central Government had made it mandatory for the CBI to take the prior approval of the government to even conduct a preliminary inquiry into allegations of corruption against officers in all civil services of the rank/grade of Joint Secretary and above. This was called the 'Single Directive'. A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court struck down this Single Directive as being arbitrary and violative of the guarantee of equal treatment and equal protection of the law for all officers under Article 14 of the Constitution. That was in the Vineet Narain judgment. Central Government gave statutory status to the Central Vigilance Commission through the Central Vigilance Commission Act (CVC Act) and brought back the Single Directive in that law as well as by amending the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (DSPE Act). What the Apex Court had struck down earlier was only an executive direction/resolution. Now the protective shield for senior officials was given legal sanction with the stamp of Parliamentary approval to the 'Single Directive'. The Government argued that such protection was essential for senior level officers to function in an independent manner without fear of prosecution for every decision they made. This was like immunising the senior bureaucracy from any inquiry into allegations of corruption against it. On being challenged under a PIL, the Supreme Court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench How did the Court rule? The Constitution Bench of the Court held that the 'Single Directive' contained in the CVC Act and the DSPE Act violated the guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution. Same is not granted to junior level officers. Further, equal grade officers at the state level do not enjoy such immunity. Therefore, it is violative of Art.14.