Bribe Demand Is No Official Duty: Supreme Court Holds Section 17A Approval Unnecessary, Upholds Corruption Charge Against Rajasthan Constable

Case Name: Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan

Date of Judgment: 16 October 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 1147

Bench: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria.

Held: The Supreme Court held that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was unnecessary for investigating an allegation that a police constable demanded a bribe of ₹1.5 lakh. The provision applies where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties. It does not provide blanket protection merely because the accused holds public office.

The Court characterised the alleged bribe demand as a criminal act unconnected with any official recommendation or decision. Accordingly, the absence of prior approval under Section 17A did not vitiate the criminal proceedings. It also held that the pending larger Bench reference concerning the validity of Section 17A did not require postponement of the appeal, since the provision was inapplicable to the facts before it.

Summary: The Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by Tejaram, a constable posted in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, challenging the framing of a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution arose from a complaint by another constable, Devendra Kumar, alleging that Tejaram had demanded ₹1.5 lakh in the name of the Superintendent of Police.

Tejaram maintained that the complaint was retaliatory. According to him, he had earlier accused the complainant of accepting illegal gratification to allow accused persons to escape during an official investigation-related visit to Madurai. Following the complainant’s email dated 22 April 2021, an FIR was registered on 4 June 2021 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 was granted on 8 December 2023, and a chargesheet under Section 7 was filed on 19 January 2024.

The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali, directed framing of the charge on 12 September 2024. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Tejaram’s revision petition on 26 March 2025. Before the Supreme Court, his principal contention was that the investigation could not have commenced without previous approval under Section 17A.

Rejecting that contention, the Court explained that Section 17A requires a connection between the alleged offence and an official recommendation or decision of the public servant concerned. Public servant status alone does not attract the statutory protection. The alleged demand in this case had no such connection and could not be treated as part of the appellant’s official functions.

The Court relied on its decisions in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani, Surendra Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan and Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, reiterating that Section 17A does not shield demands for illegal gratification of the nature alleged here. It declined to await the larger Bench’s consideration of the provision’s validity because that question did not affect the disposal of this appeal.

Addressing the separate objection concerning sanction under Section 19, the Court noted that sanction had been obtained before cognizance. On the facts, the alleged belatedness did not invalidate the proceedings. The Court left the parties’ rival contentions on the merits for determination at trial.

Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment sustaining the framing of the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It ruled that the absence of prior approval under Section 17A did not invalidate the initiation of criminal proceedings against Tejaram.