Demanding a bribe is not an official decision, so Section 17A approval is not needed, says Supreme Court

Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria held that Section 17A of the PC Act protects only decisions and recommendations made in official duty, and refused to stop a Rajasthan constable's bribery trial.

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stops the police from investigating a public servant without prior government approval, but only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken in the discharge of official duties. On 16 October 2026 the Supreme Court held that a demand for a bribe is neither. Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for a bench with Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, dismissed an appeal by Tejaram, a Rajasthan police constable charged under Section 7 of the Act. Asking for ₹1.5 lakh, the Court said, was a purely criminal act with no link to any official function, and so Section 17A was never engaged.

Two constables and a complaint

Tejaram was posted in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. According to him, he had accused a fellow constable, Devendra Kumar of Abu City police station, of taking money from accused persons during an investigation trip to Madurai so that they could escape. His case is that Devendra Kumar retaliated with a false complaint.

On 22 April 2021 Devendra Kumar emailed the Anti-Corruption Bureau, alleging that Tejaram had demanded a bribe of ₹1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. FIR No. 174 of 2021 was registered on 4 June 2021 under Section 7A of the PC Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Tejaram was arrested on 1 September 2021. Sanction to prosecute under Section 19 was granted on 8 December 2023, and a chargesheet under Section 7 was filed on 19 January 2024. On 12 September 2024 the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali, framed a charge under Section 7 as amended in 2018. The Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed Tejaram's revision petition on 26 March 2025.

The arguments

Senior counsel Abhimanyu Bhandari argued that Section 17A is mandatory. Because Tejaram was a public servant, the police needed prior approval before starting any inquiry, and the lack of approval could not be cured later. He said the High Court had wrongly followed Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh rather than Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, and pointed out that whether Sections 17A and 19 are procedural or substantive is pending before the Court in B.S. Yeddiyurappa v. A. Alam Pasha.

For the State, Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak said Section 17A is not a blanket immunity and does not cover criminal acts unrelated to official duty. The allegation was a demand for illegal gratification, not a recommendation or decision. She noted that Tejaram had never challenged the FIR. She also said the reference of Section 17A's validity to a larger bench, made on 13 January 2026 in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India, made no difference, because the provision did not apply at all.

What Section 17A requires

The Court read the provision closely. It applies only when an offence under the Act is alleged against a public servant and is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken by that public servant in discharging official functions or duties. If those conditions are met, approval is required from the Union government, the State government or the authority competent to remove the officer, depending on where the officer serves. The first proviso removes the requirement where a person is arrested on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage. The second proviso requires the authority to decide within three months, extendable by one month for recorded reasons.

The bench relied on a consistent line of cases. In CBI v. Santosh Karnani (2023) the Court held that a bribe-demand accusation did not concern any recommendation or decision, and that requiring approval in a trap case would defeat the trap. Surendra Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan (August 2025) followed Santosh Karnani. In Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan (2026) the Court said Section 17A could not, by any stretch, apply to a demand for illegal gratification. The bench also cited the Kerala High Court's decisions in Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala and M.R. Simon v. State of Kerala, which held that misappropriation, false accounts, cheating, criminal breach of trust and bribe-taking fall outside the provision.

From these the Court drew a clear rule. The decisive words are “discharge of his official functions or duties”. The protection reaches only a decision or recommendation made in that capacity, and the alleged offence must be relatable to it. The section does not apply generally to everything a public servant is accused of. Tejaram was accused of asking for ₹1.5 lakh. That was not part of his official functions and had no link to any decision or recommendation he made as a constable. None of the conditions in Section 17A was met, so the proceedings were not vitiated for want of approval.

The larger-bench reference and the Section 19 sanction

Because Section 17A did not apply, the pending reference on its validity had no bearing and the case did not have to wait for it.

Tejaram had also briefly argued that the Section 19 sanction was obtained late. The Court held that, since the sanction was obtained before cognizance, any defect in it was at most an irregularity. It would not vitiate the proceedings or the trial. The parties could raise their contentions on the merits at trial.

Order

The High Court was right to dismiss the revision petition, and its judgment was upheld. For the High Court's reasons and the additional reasons given, the Supreme Court held that Section 17A was not attracted and that the absence of prior approval did not vitiate the criminal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed and the trial on the charge under Section 7 will continue.