The concept of the prior sanction is present in section 197 of the CRPC and is also a provision of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. As per prior sanction, they are required to take prior sanction of public officials before the prosecution starts in court of law.

Criticism of Prior Sanction:

• It is not a new concept, but the main issue is at what stage it is required? It should be applied before the start of investigation or before prosecution in court.
• But in 2014 in its judgement Supreme Court said that prior sanction for investigation could impede an unbiased, efficient, and timely investigation.

Prior Restraint on Press: 

• The ordinance places a “prior restraint” on the press, as defined by the statute. Prior restraint is a form of censorship that happens before, rather than after, anything is written. A prior restraint would be constitutional if it was intended to come under the exceptions to free expression contained in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, according to the Supreme Court. The recent bill does not fall under any of the above exceptions.

Back to Colonial Era:

• The ordinance is a throwback to colonial times. Opposition has a valid point in stating that “It’s 2017, not 1817”.
• In colonial India, Governor-General Wellesley in 1799 introduced regulations under which no newspaper could be published at all until it was formally inspected by the government.
• It was done so that Tipu Sultan could not get information on troop movements during the Fourth Mysore War.

Media’s Role in Exposing Corruption:

• Had such a law been there earlier, the media could not have reported, in Rajasthan, official collusion in Lalit Modi’s escape or Aravallis Mining scam.
• If Rajasthan’s law inspired Central legislation, no scam would ever be reported, nationwide.

Comparison with Maharashtar ‘Gag Law’:

• In 2016, a similar ‘gag law’ [Code of Criminal Procedure (Maharashtra Amendment) Act, 2015] came into force in Maharashtra.
• However, there are 2 main differences between this law and the Rajasthan Bill.

⇒ There is no prohibition from publishing information about public servants while sanction is being obtained for initiating an investigation.

⇒ The maximum time period is 3 months against the Rajasthan’s bill for sanction is about 6 months. Hence this gives ample amount of time to destroy available evidence and manage witnesses.

Criticism of Select Committee of MLA’s:

• The main criticism is that the committee is chaired by the state Home Minister of respective states, and this is against the practice in Parliament where central ministers are not the part of the Parliamentary Committee.

Concluding Remark

• In this regard Rajasthan’s move was considered a bold step. An immediate rollback would be the prudent response from the Rajasthan government.
• Also, the state and centre should take a progressive step by enforcing a strong body of legislation that punishes the corrupt, protects the honest, and ensures timebound public services and whistle-blower safety.