UPSC Law Optional 2025 PYQ: Is the Definition of ‘Public Servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Illustrative and Not Exhaustive?

UPSC Law Optional Paper 2 | Question 1(b) | 10 Marks.

Answer: The Definition of 'Public Servant' under the PC Act, 1988 is Illustrative and Not Exhaustive

1. Introduction : The Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988 is a special legislation enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption. A critical aspect of its effectiveness lies in the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(c) . Unlike the narrower definition under the Indian Penal Code, the 1988 Act provides a much wider, comprehensive, and inclusive definition. The assertion that this definition is "illustrative and not exhaustive" is correct, as the legislature intentionally shifted the emphasis from the employer to the nature of the duty performed. The Supreme Court has observed that "the legislature has used a comprehensive definition of 'public servant' to achieve the purpose of punishing and curbing the growing menace of corruption" (Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi), 2025 INSC 618).

2. Why the Definition Cannot Be Given a Narrower Interpretation

A narrower or exhaustive interpretation would defeat the object of the PC Act. Corruption is dynamic and evolving. If the definition were confined to a closed catalogue, new forms of corruption would go unpunished. As held in State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, (2020) 20 SCC 360, "the legislative intention was not to provide an exhaustive list of authorities which are covered, rather a general definition of 'public servant' is provided thereunder." In Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh, (2012) 3 SCC 64, the Supreme Court observed: "Corruption in our country not only poses a grave danger to the concept of constitutional governance, it also threatens the very foundation of Indian democracy and the Rule of Law. ... Therefore, the duty of the Court is that any anti-corruption law has to be interpreted and worked out in such a fashion as to strengthen the fight against corruption. That is to say in a situation where two constructions are eminently reasonable, the Court has to accept the one that seeks to eradicate corruption to the one which seeks to perpetuate it."

3. Public Duty as the Determinant of Status

• The most significant shift is that public duty, not the position held, is the determinant. Section 2(b) defines "public duty" as "a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest."

• In Aman Bhatia (2025 INSC 618) , the Court held that "it is the nature of duty which is the determining factor and not the manner of appointment or mode of remuneration."

• In Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah(supra), the Court clarified: "The emphasis is not on the position held by an individual, rather, it is on the public duty performed by him/her." Even if a person is not a traditional public servant, if they discharge a public duty, they are covered.

• In G. Krishnegowda v. State of Karnataka, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15332, the Court held that "even if a person is not a public servant, but by virtue of his office if he is discharging public duty, then he is covered under the ambit of the P.C. Act."

4. Judicial Expansions: Non-Traditional Actors as Public Servants

Applying the public duty determinant, courts have brought several non-traditional actors within the ambit of the Act.

1. Private bank employees have been held to be public servants in CBI v. Ramesh Gelli, (2016) 3 SCC 788 under Section 2(c)(viii) read with Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act.

2. Licensed stamp vendors were held to be public servants in Aman Bhatia (2025 INSC 618) .

3. In State v. C.N. Manjunath, (2017) 11 SCC 361, the Supreme Court held that licensed surveyors in Taluks are public servants under Section 2(c)(i) and (viii), as they discharge a public duty. The Court observed: "Once the nature of performance of duties gets crystallised, no doubt remains that these licensed surveyors would come within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act."

4. In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. CBI, Cr. M.P. No. 1048 of 2021 (Jharkhand High Court), the Court held that a Resolution Professional under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code performs a public duty and is a public servant under Section 2(c)(v) and (viii) of the PC Act, 1988.

5. Employees of societies receiving government funds, as in G. Krishnegowda(supra), were also held to be public servants.

5. Conclusion : The definition under Section 2(c) is exhaustive only regarding the attribute of performing a public duty as defined in Section 2(b). However, the catalogue of persons falling within that definition is merely illustrative, not exhaustive. The primary test is whether the person is performing any public duty, not the mode of appointment or remuneration. As observed in Subramanian Swamy, where two constructions are possible, the Court must accept the one that eradicates corruption. This expansive interpretation ensures that corruption is curbed wherever a public function is performed.

Link for Crash Course UPSC Law Optional 2026 - https://www.lawxpertsmv.com/crash-course-2026