Section 26 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003: Amendment of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946
Section 26 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 (Act 45 of 2003) amended the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act 25 of 1946). The provision inserted an interpretation section, substituted provisions concerning superintendence and administration of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, and originally inserted section 6A concerning prior approval for certain corruption inquiries or investigations.
Meaning and effect of Section 26
Section 26 does not create a separate offence or penalty. It is a legislative amendment clause. Its function was to amend the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the statute governing the Delhi Special Police Establishment, commonly associated with the Central Bureau of Investigation.
In 2003, the provision linked the statutory framework of the Central Vigilance Commission with the superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment in relation to investigations under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It also dealt with the Director and senior officers of the establishment and introduced a prior-approval provision as section 6A.
Section 26: amendments made in 2003
Clause (a): insertion of section 1A - Interpretation
Section 1A provided that words and expressions used in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act but not defined there, and defined in the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, would carry the meanings assigned to them in the CVC Act.
Clause (b): substitution of sections 4, 4A, 4B and 4C
Section 4 - Superintendence and administration: The 2003 text vested superintendence of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, insofar as it related to investigation of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, in the Central Vigilance Commission. Superintendence in other matters remained with the Central Government. Administration vested in the Director appointed by the Central Government.
Section 4A - Committee for appointment of Director: The 2003 provision established a committee-based process for recommending appointment of the Director and specified considerations for preparing a panel of eligible Indian Police Service officers. This provision was later amended; the current statutory text should be used for the presently applicable appointment mechanism.
Section 4B - Terms and conditions of service of Director: The provision protected a minimum tenure of two years and restricted transfer without the consent required by the statute. Later legislation inserted provisos permitting extension of the Director's tenure, in public interest and subject to statutory conditions, up to a total period of five years including the initial appointment.
Section 4C - Senior appointments: The 2003 amendment provided a committee-based process concerning appointment of officers of the level of Superintendent of Police and above and extension or curtailment of their tenure in the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
Clause (c): insertion of section 6A - Previous approval
Section 6A, as inserted in 2003, required previous approval of the Central Government before the Delhi Special Police Establishment could conduct an inquiry or investigation into specified Prevention of Corruption Act allegations involving officers at the level of Joint Secretary and above and certain comparable appointees. An exception applied to cases involving arrest on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept illegal gratification.
Later amendments and current legal status
Section 6A is not operative. In Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court held section 6A unconstitutional as violating Article 14. A Constitution Bench later held in CBI v. R.R. Kishore (2023) that the declaration of invalidity operates from the date section 6A was inserted, because an unconstitutional provision is treated as void from inception, subject to the reasoning and application stated in that judgment.
Section 4A has changed since 2003. The committee composition reproduced in the original Section 26 amendment is historical and should not be treated as the present appointment provision. Later amendments, including changes associated with the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, altered the statutory appointment framework.
Section 4B has also been amended. The Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2021 inserted provisos enabling extension of the Director's tenure, one year at a time in public interest on the statutory recommendation and for reasons recorded in writing, with an overall ceiling of five years including the initial appointment.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is a separate current provision. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 now contains section 17A dealing with prior approval for enquiry, inquiry or investigation where an alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties, subject to the text and exceptions of that provision. It should not be confused with the former section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.
Why Section 26 remains relevant
Section 26 is important for understanding the statutory development of the relationship between the Central Vigilance Commission and the Delhi Special Police Establishment. For historical disputes arising during the period when particular versions of sections 4A, 4B, 4C or 6A were in force, the relevant version of the law and applicable judicial decisions must be identified by date.
Official legal resources
For authoritative and updated statutory text, refer to the official India Code versions of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003, the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Judicial decisions may be verified through the Supreme Court of India.
This page explains the statutory provision for legal information. Always check the official text, amendments and binding judgments applicable to the relevant date and facts.