There are two relevant legal provisions.

Section 6A of the DSPE Act: This provision essentially states that the CBI
shall not conduct even an enquiry or investigation into any instances of
corruption against employees of the level of Joint Secretary and above without
the prior approval of the Central Government.

Section 197 of CrPC requires sanction for court to take cognisance of an
offence allegedly committed by a public servant, not removable from office
except with the sanction of the government, in the discharge of his or her
official duty. It applies to all ranks.

BACKGROUND

Prior to the landmark case of Vineet Narain vs Union of India in 1998, the
substance of this provision existed in the form of an executive directive issued
by the Central Government (Single Directive) to the CBI. Its stated objective
was to protect decision making level officers from the threat and ignominy of
malicious and vexatious inquiries/investigations and thereby relieve them of
the anxiety from the likelihood of harassment for taking honest decisions.
Thats how the rank of JS came into picture even in the Section 6A later.

The Supreme Court in Vineet Narain held the Single Directive null and void
under the DSPE Act as it then stood.

The real effect of the Single Directive, as the Court noted, was to thwart
investigation of a cognizable offence instead of promoting the cause of justice
by directing further investigation leading to a prosecution.

Despite the Courts criticism in the Vineet Narain case, the Parliament enacted
the Single Directive as a law as Section 6A of the DSPE Act (inserted via the
CVC Act, 2003).

After the Courts decision in Vineet Narain, the Law Commission prepared a
draft legislation which omitted (rightly) the Single Directive. Surprisingly,
however, the Law Commissions draft was reportedly withheld by the senior
bureaucrats who instead placed their own draft Bill containing the Single
Directive before the Cabinet for approval.

Despite a series of objections from various quarters and responses from the
government, the Single Directive was passed as law. Moreover, the CVC Bill
was passed by a mere voice vote.

DEVELOPMENTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER

Section 6A was inserted in 2003.

In 2005, a three-Judge Bench of the apex court headed by Justice Y K
Sabharwal had referred to a Constitutional Bench the issue of validity of
Section 6A of the DSPE Act, 1946, but over eight years later, the important
matter is still to be heard and decided. This was on a petition of Subrahmanyam
Swamy.

In Dec. 2006, in Parkash Singh Badals case it was held that the plea of
applicability of Section 197 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which
requires sanction for prosecution of a public servant, was "untenable" with
regard to the Prevention of Corruption Act.

In August 2013, a SC order that in court-monitored investigation into the
alleged 2G scam, the CBI was not required to take prior sanction from the
government to probe public servants of the rank of joint secretary or above,
effectively quashed the statutory requirement for prior sanction under Section
6A of the DSPE Act, 1946, in so far as court-monitored probes are concerned.

Still, the position was not categorical.

This has been done in the recent judgment.

The court held as invalid and unconstitutional the provision in the law requiring
government's approval to probe senior bureaucrats on corruption charges.

All government officials have to be treated equally and have to face the same
process of inquiry in graft cases, the SC said, adding, "status of top bureaucrats
is of no relevance in the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act".

The apex court said such a classification of bureaucrats for investigation
purposes violated Article 14 of the Constitution which mandated that law would
treat everyone equally

"Prior permission from the Centre to probe corruption charges against joint
secretary level officers would fetter the CBI from collecting evidence and also
alert the corrupt to destroy evidence," the Supreme Court added.

"Protection of prior approval for probing graft charges against officers at level
of joint secretary and above has propensity of shielding corruption," the
Supreme Court said.
CIVIL SERVICE TYPE POSITION:

Some honest bureaucrats have unfairly faced the personal agendas and whims
of politicians of differing factions as and when each such neta assumes power.
The bureaucrat is understandably wary of being the fall guy in the saga of
political vengeance exercised through the misuse of CBI.

Possibility of abuse exists. But one has to live with a smaller evil to
eradicate a larger evil.

Interestingly, The provision in the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act,
1946 was passed under the NDA rule in 2003 despite vocal objections by Ram
Jethmalani, among others, who is now a member of the BJP. It only goes to
show the sheer strength of the bureaucrat lobby in having its way despite the
party in power.