Demanding a Bribe Is Not an "Official Decision": Section 17A of the PC Act

1. The ruling

Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 1147 , was decided by the Supreme Court on 16 October 2026. The Bench comprised S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria, JJ. The judgment was authored by N.V. Anjaria, J.

The appellant, a police constable in Rajasthan, faced a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, for allegedly demanding illegal gratification of Rs.1.5 lakh. He argued that the investigation was void because no prior approval had been taken under Section 17A of the Act. The Special Judge framed the charge; the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed his revision. He then approached the Supreme Court. The appeal was dismissed.

Section 17A, which the Court described as having been engrafted into the statute book, bars the police from starting an enquiry, inquiry or investigation into a PC Act offence by a public servant where that offence is relatable to a recommendation made or a decision taken in the discharge of official functions or duties, unless the competent authority first grants previous approval. The Court held that this protection is not omnibus. It applies only when those ingredients are present. Demand of a bribe is not a recommendation or a decision in official duty. It is a pure criminal act. In the Court's words, "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." Section 17A therefore did not apply, and want of prior approval under that provision did not vitiate the proceedings. A pending larger-bench reference on the validity of Section 17A was held irrelevant once the provision itself was found inapplicable.

2. Syllabus topic it affects

Paper II, Law of Crimes: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 7 (offence relating to a public servant being bribed) and Section 17A (prior approval for enquiry or investigation of offences relatable to official recommendations or decisions).

3. How UPSC could ask it

1. Does the prior-approval requirement under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, apply to a case of demand of illegal gratification? Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court rulings. (10 marks)

2. Distinguish the protective regime of Section 17A from the sanction requirement under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (10 marks)

3. Section 17A of the PC Act cannot be viewed as having an omnibus application. Critically examine. (15 marks)

4. Answer-writing pointers

Key provisions: Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988 (as amended in 2018); Section 17A (prior approval where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation or decision in discharge of official functions or duties; first proviso for on-the-spot arrest for accepting or attempting to accept undue advantage); contrast with Section 19 (previous sanction for prosecution).

Leading cases to link (as cited in the judgment):

• Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani (2023) SCC OnLine SC 427: Section 17A is confined to offences relatable to official recommendations or decisions; accusation of demanding a bribe did not require previous approval.

• Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan 2026 SCC OnLine SC 807: Section 17A "by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification."

Structure tip: open with the text of Section 17A and its decisive phrase (discharge of official functions or duties). Separate bribe-demand from official decision-making. Close with the point that a pending constitutional challenge to Section 17A does not delay a case where the section does not apply at all.

A new batch starts this coming Monday. See plans and the current offer → https://www.lawxpertsmv.com/law-optional-courses