No Section 17A Approval for Bribe Demands: Supreme Court

No Prior Approval Under Section 17A for Bribe-Demand Cases: Supreme Court Upholds Charge Against Rajasthan Constable

Published: 16 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Supreme Court held that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires prior approval before police investigate a public servant, does not apply to an allegation of demanding a bribe, because that is not a recommendation or decision taken in discharge of official duties. It upheld the charge under Section 7 against a Rajasthan police constable and held that the timing of the Section 19 sanction, granted before cognizance, was at most an irregularity (paras 6.1-6.3, 8).

Key holdings

Prior approval under Section 17A is needed only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties (paras 5.1.1, 6.1).

Demanding illegal gratification is a pure criminal act outside the protective umbrella of Section 17A (paras 6.2, 6.3).

The pending larger-bench reference on the validity of Section 17A need not be awaited where the provision has no application (para 7).

Sanction under Section 19 granted before cognizance is at most irregular if belated and does not vitiate the trial (para 8).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The appellant, a constable at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, had accused a fellow constable, Devendra Kumar, of taking illegal gratification from accused persons during official work in Madurai (para 3). The complainant then alleged by e-mail to the Anti-Corruption Bureau that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs.1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, which the appellant calls retaliation (para 3.1). FIR No. 174 of 2021 followed; he was arrested on 01.09.2021, sanction under Section 19 came on 08.12.2023 and a chargesheet on 19.01.2024 (para 5). The Special Judge, ACB, Pali framed a charge under Section 7 on 12.09.2024, and the High Court at Jodhpur dismissed his revision (paras 2, 3.3).

Court's Findings

Section 17A bars police from enquiring into an offence by a public servant without prior approval only where the offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions or duties (paras 5.1.1, 5.1.2). In Santosh Karnani the investigation of a public servant accused of demanding a bribe needed no previous approval, a view followed in Surendra Dhariwal, and Anil Daima held that Section 17A cannot apply to demands of illegal gratification; Kerala High Court rulings in Shankara Bhat and M.R. Simon placed bribery outside the provision (paras 5.2-5.5.1). The judicial view is "consistent and categorical" (para 5.4), and the decisive phrase is "discharge his official functions or duties" (para 6). A demand for illegal gratification is a pure criminal act unconnected to official duties, so none of the ingredients of Section 17A is met and the proceedings were not vitiated (paras 6.1-6.3). The larger-bench reference on the validity of Section 17A does not affect a case where it does not apply at all (para 7). Sanction under Section 19 was taken before cognizance; any delay is a mere irregularity, and the trial will proceed on its merits (para 8).

Legal Principle

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act protects a public servant only where the alleged offence is relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions. A demand for a bribe is a pure criminal act outside official duties, so no prior approval is needed to investigate it (paras 6.1, 6.3).

Precedents Relied Upon

Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani (2023) SCC OnLine SC 427
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.2, 5.3
Section 17A did not require previous approval to investigate a public servant accused of demanding a bribe, as the accusation did not revolve around any recommendation made or decision taken in official capacity; prior approval in a trap case would defeat its purpose.
Surendra Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.3
Followed Santosh Karnani in a case under Section 7 of the PC Act (Criminal Appeal Nos. 3717-3718 of 2025, decided on 25.08.2025).
Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan 2026 SCC OnLine SC 807
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.4
Section 17A cannot by any stretch be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.

View all precedents (9)

Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16357
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.5
Kerala High Court: a crime by a public servant with no connection to his official duty, such as receiving bribes, is outside Section 17A.
M.R. Simon v. State of Kerala 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7255
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 5.5
Kerala High Court reiterated that offences such as receiving bribes are beyond the scope of Section 17A.
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.1
Relied on by the High Court; the appellant said the High Court erred in following it.
Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2020) 2 SCC 338
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.1, 4.2
Cited by the appellant on Section 17A; the State said it had no bearing as Section 17A was not attracted.
B.S. Yeddiyurappa v. A. Alam Pasha 2025 SCC OnLine SC 836
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.1, 4.2
Cited as pending on whether Sections 17A and 19 of the PC Act are procedural or substantive.
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.2, 7
The validity of Section 17A was referred to a larger bench by the order of 13.01.2026 in W.P. (C) No. 1373 of 2018; the reference has no connection with a case where Section 17A does not apply.