Section 17A PC Act Doesn't Apply To Bribe Demand As It Is Unconnected To Official Duty: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which mandates prior approval before initiating an inquiry or investigation into certain allegations against public servants, does not apply to cases involving the demand of illegal gratification, as such conduct is unconnected with the discharge of official duties.

A bench of Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria observed that the provision applies only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties.

“The act of demanding a bribe is a pure criminal act, not connected with official functions and not relatable to or having any linkage with recommendation or decision of the appellant in his capacity, as public servant,” the Court observed.

The judgment authored by Justice Anjaria stated :

"In order that the provisions of Section 17A of the PC Act applies, there has to be a “decision” or “recommendation” by a public servant against whom an enquiry or investigation is to be initiated. Such “decision” or “recommendation” shall be a “decision” taken or “recommendation” made by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties. In other words, the alleged offence against the public servant must be relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official duties. These primary and essential aspects are absent in the present case to attract Section 17A of the PC Act. The allegation is of demanding illegal gratification by the appellant, which is a pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official functions or duties."

The Court made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by a Rajasthan Police constable, Tejaram, challenging the framing of a charge against him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The constable had argued that the proceedings against him were vitiated because prior approval under Section 17A had not been obtained before initiating the investigation.

Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the essential ingredients for attracting Section 17A were absent in the case.

“Section 17A of the PC Act is not applicable in the case of appellant herein. None of the ingredients provided for in the Section is satisfied to attract its operation,” the Court said.

The case arose from an allegation that the appellant had demanded a bribe of ₹1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. An FIR was registered against him in June 2021, and sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Act was granted in December 2023. A chargesheet was subsequently filed, and the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali, framed a charge against him under Section 7 of the Act in September 2024.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his revision petition challenging the framing of the charge, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that prior approval under Section 17A was mandatory and that the failure to obtain it could not be cured at a later stage. He also relied on earlier judgments of the Supreme Court and pointed out that the validity of Section 17A was pending consideration before a larger bench.

The State, on the other hand, argued that the provision did not confer blanket immunity on public servants and could not protect criminal conduct unrelated to their official functions.

S.17A does not have omnibus application

The Supreme Court referred to its decision in CBI v. Santosh Karnani(2023), in which it had held that Section 17A would not apply where the allegation did not involve a recommendation or decision taken by the public servant in an official capacity.

The Court noted that the accusation in the present case concerned the demand of a bribe and did not revolve around any recommendation made or decision taken by the appellant in his administrative or quasi-judicial capacity.

It also referred to its recent decision in Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan(2026), which had held that Section 17A could not be applied to cases involving the demand of illegal gratification.

The Court further referred to decision of the Kerala High Court in Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala observing that criminal acts such as receiving bribes, which have no connection with official duties, do not fall within the protective ambit of Section 17A.

Emphasising the limited scope of the provision, the Court said that although Section 17A was enacted to protect public servants from prosecution in specified circumstances, the protection could be extended only when the statutory conditions were satisfied.

“The Section cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application,” the Court observed.

The bench clarified that the larger-bench reference concerning the validity of Section 17A did not prevent it from deciding the present appeal, as the provision was not attracted to the facts of the case in the first place.

"Thus, from the plain language of the provision of Section 17A, it is evident that the provision is confined to be applied in the situations where there is a recommendation or a decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his official duties. The allegation against the appellant in the present case is that of a criminal act, namely that the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1.5 lakh. The conduct on the part of the appellant, by no stretch of imagination, can be treated as part of the discharge of his  official functions. It was not in any way relatable to recommendation or a decision taken by the appellant in discharge of his official duties but was an act unrelated to his official duty."

The Court also rejected the challenge based on the timing of the sanction under Section 19, observing that the sanction had been obtained before cognizance was taken and that any irregularity in that regard would not vitiate the criminal proceedings.

Holding that the absence of prior approval under Section 17A had not invalidated the proceedings, the Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.