A five-judge Constitution Bench held that when the Court struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act in Subramanian Swamy (2014), the provision was not merely invalid going forward — it was void ab initio, unenforceable from the date of its insertion on 11 September 2003. The Bench rejected the Article 20(1) ex-post-facto objection because Section 6A was a procedural protection, not a penal provision creating an offence.
On 11 October 2022 a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court answered two questions on the sanction to prosecute a public servant under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. It held that the three-month period for deciding a sanction request — extendable by one month where legal consultation is required — is mandatory, yet that a failure to sanction in time does not vitiate or quash the prosecution. The consequence of delay is the accountability of the defaulting officer, subject to judicial review and CVC action, not the acquittal of the accused.
On 4 March 2024, a unanimous seven-judge bench held that legislators enjoy no immunity from bribery prosecution under Articles 105(2) and 194(2), overruling P.V. Narasimha Rao.
On 6 May 2014, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice R.M. Lodha struck down Section 6A of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act 1946 — the statutory revival of the executive 'Single Directive' that this Court had abrogated in Vineet Narain (1998) — as violative of Article 14. The judgment closes the doctrinal arc: an administrative immunity, struck down in 1997-98, cannot be reintroduced in legislative form when the underlying constitutional defect remains. The decision became the analytical scaffold for CBI v. R.R. Kishore (2023) and frames the still-pending challenge to Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 inserted by the 2018 amendment.