Justice B. V. Nagarathna has delivered a sharp warning against corruption, describing it as a “cancerous growth” that corrodes moral standards and weakens public administration, while urging children and young people to reject wealth accumulated beyond known sources of income. Speaking at a public forum on constitutional values and governance, the Supreme Court judge also questioned the rationale behind Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, arguing that it risks shielding wrongdoing rather than strengthening honest decision-making.Her remarks, delivered in a lecture attended by legal professionals, students and civil servants, centred on the long-term damage corruption inflicts on democratic institutions. Justice Nagarathna said corruption does not merely involve illegal financial gain but undermines trust between the state and citizens, distorts policy choices and normalises unethical conduct within public life. Such practices, she said, hollow out constitutional promises of equality and fairness, leaving governance vulnerable to arbitrariness and abuse.
Addressing Section 17A, which requires prior government approval before investigating alleged corruption by public servants for decisions taken in the discharge of official duties, Justice Nagarathna questioned whether the provision aligns with the constitutional commitment to accountability. She argued that while safeguards are necessary to protect honest officials from frivolous complaints, blanket protections can impede timely investigation and foster a perception of impunity. The judge stopped short of issuing any judicial ruling on the provision but said the law, in its present form, deserved serious reconsideration by lawmakers and constitutional courts.
The Prevention of Corruption Act was amended in 2018 with the stated aim of encouraging bona fide decision-making by officials, particularly in policy and commercial matters. Supporters of Section 17A maintain that it prevents harassment of civil servants and allows governance to function without fear. Critics, including several former judges and anti-corruption advocates, have argued that the requirement for prior sanction creates delays and enables political influence over investigations. Justice Nagarathna’s comments have brought renewed attention to this debate, especially as courts continue to hear challenges related to the provision’s scope and application.
Beyond legal critique, her speech placed strong emphasis on social responsibility and ethical upbringing. Calling on parents, teachers and institutions to instil integrity from an early age, she said children must be taught to value honesty over material success. “The attraction of unexplained wealth corrodes character before it corrodes systems,” she said, adding that societal tolerance of illicit enrichment sends a dangerous signal to future generations.
Legal scholars note that Justice Nagarathna has consistently highlighted the moral foundations of constitutional governance in her public addresses. As one of the senior-most judges in the Supreme Court, she has often spoken about the role of values in interpreting the Constitution, particularly in cases involving equality, federalism and institutional independence. Her latest remarks fit within this broader judicial philosophy, which treats corruption not only as a legal offence but as a threat to the constitutional order.
The speech also comes at a time when public debate around accountability mechanisms has intensified. High-profile corruption cases, administrative delays and questions over investigative autonomy have kept the issue in focus. Several petitions before constitutional courts challenge procedural barriers in anti-corruption law, while policy discussions continue on balancing protection for honest officials with the need for effective oversight.
Justice Nagarathna underlined that combating corruption cannot rely solely on punitive laws. Strong institutions, transparent processes and an informed citizenry are equally critical, she said. Youth, in particular, have a role in rejecting social norms that glorify wealth without questioning its source. She warned that when society admires ill-gotten success, it weakens the resolve to uphold legality and fairness.