Supreme Court on Section 17A PC Act and Bribe Demand: No Prior Approval Needed – Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan [2026 INSC 1147]

In Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 1147), the Supreme Court held that prior approval under Section 17A PC Act is not required to investigate a demand for illegal gratification by a public servant. It dismissed a police constable's appeal against the Rajasthan High Court order upholding a charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (paras 2, 8–11). The Court ruled that Section 17A applies only where the offence relates to a recommendation made or decision taken in discharge of official functions (paras 5.1.1–6.1). A bribe demand is a pure criminal act unconnected with official duty (paras 6.1–6.3). The pending larger-bench reference does not affect such cases, and any delay in Section 19 sanction is at most an irregularity (paras 7–8).

Headnote

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A, 17A, 19 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 120B – Prior approval for investigation – Demand of illegal gratification – Sanction for prosecution – Irregularity – Larger bench reference.

Held: (i) Section 17A protects only decisions taken or recommendations made by a public servant in discharge of official functions (paras 5.1.1–5.1.2, 6.1).

(ii) Demanding a bribe is not an official function; it is a pure criminal act, and no Section 17A approval is required to investigate it (paras 6.1–6.3).

(iii) The consistent line of Supreme Court and High Court decisions holds bribery to be outside Section 17A (paras 5.2–5.5.1).

(iv) The pending reference on the validity of Section 17A does not stall a case to which Section 17A does not apply (para 7).

(v) Sanction under Section 19 granted before cognizance is valid; delay is at most an irregularity that does not vitiate the trial (para 8).

(paras 5–11)

Judgment Intelligence

Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed; High Court order upholding the charge under Section 7 PC Act affirmed; trial to proceed on merits.

Case: Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan

Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1147

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 4988 of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025)

Court: Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision: 16 October 2026

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

Relevant Acts & Sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 7A, 17A, 19; IPC, 1860 – Section 120B

Impugned Order: Order of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the revision against framing of charge by the Special Judge, ACB, Pali (12.09.2024)

Source: Supreme Court of India

Key Holdings

• Section 17A is attracted only when the alleged offence relates to an official recommendation or decision (paras 5.1.1–5.1.2).
• Investigation into a demand for bribe needs no prior approval under Section 17A (paras 6.1–6.3).
• Santosh Karnani, Surendra Dhariwal and Anil Daima lay down a consistent view (paras 5.2–5.4).
• A larger-bench reference on Section 17A is no ground to keep unconnected cases pending (para 7).
• Sanction obtained before cognizance satisfies Section 19, even if delayed (para 8).
• Allegations of a retaliatory complaint are matters for trial (paras 3.1, 8–11).

Brief Facts

The appellant, a constable in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, had earlier accused a fellow constable of taking illegal gratification during official work in Madurai (para 3.1).

The complainant later e-mailed the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that the appellant demanded Rs. 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. The appellant called it retaliation (para 3.1).

FIR No. 174 of 2021 was registered and the appellant was arrested on 01.09.2021. Sanction under Section 19 was granted on 08.12.2023 and the chargesheet filed on 19.01.2024 (para 5).

On 12.09.2024, the Special Judge, ACB, Pali, framed a charge under Section 7. The Rajasthan High Court dismissed his revision (paras 2, 3.3).

Issues (paras 5–8)

1. Whether prior approval under Section 17A was required to investigate the alleged demand of bribe (paras 5, 6).
2. Whether the pending larger-bench reference on Section 17A required the matter to await its outcome (para 7).
3. Whether the timing of the Section 19 sanction vitiated the proceedings (para 8).

Court's Findings

Arguments (paras 4.1–4.2): The appellant argued that the High Court wrongly followed Nara Chandrababu Naidu and that Section 17A applied, relying on Yashwant Sinha v. CBI. The State replied that Section 17A was not attracted at all (paras 4.1–4.2).

Scope of Section 17A (paras 5.1.1–5.1.2): The text of Section 17A protects public servants against investigation into recommendations made or decisions taken in discharge of official functions. Its purpose is to shield honest decision-making (paras 5.1.1–5.1.2).

Consistent precedent (paras 5.2–5.5.1): In CBI v. Santosh Karnani, the Court held no approval is needed to probe a bribe demand. Surendra Dhariwal and Anil Daima followed it. Kerala High Court rulings in Shankara Bhat and M.R. Simon took the same view (paras 5.2–5.5.1).

Bribe demand is not official duty (paras 6.1–6.3): Demanding illegal gratification has no link with any recommendation or decision. It is a pure criminal act. None of the ingredients of Section 17A is present, so the investigation was not vitiated (paras 6.1–6.3).

Larger-bench reference (para 7): The validity of Section 17A has been referred to a larger bench in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India. Questions on whether Sections 17A and 19 are procedural are pending in B.S. Yeddiyurappa. Neither affects a case where Section 17A does not apply (para 7).

Section 19 sanction (para 8): Sanction was granted on 08.12.2023, before cognizance. Any delay is at most an irregularity and does not vitiate the trial (para 8).

Final Outcome / Directions (paras 8–11)

• Criminal appeal dismissed.
• High Court order upholding the charge under Section 7 PC Act affirmed.
• Trial to proceed on its merits; observations do not affect the defence at trial.

Legal Principle

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires prior approval only for inquiry or investigation into offences relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions. A demand or acceptance of illegal gratification is not such an act and can be investigated without approval. The pending reference on Section 17A does not stall such cases, and sanction under Section 19 obtained before cognizance is valid notwithstanding delay, which is at most an irregularity.

Precedents Relied Upon

• CBI v. Santosh Karnani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427 – Relied upon – no Section 17A approval for bribe-demand investigation. Discussed at paras 5.2–5.3.
• Surendra Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan, Crl. A. Nos. 3717–3718 of 2025 (25.08.2025) – Relied upon – followed Santosh Karnani. Discussed at para 5.3.
• Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 807 – Relied upon – Section 17A inapplicable to bribe demands. Discussed at para 5.4.
• Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16357; M.R. Simon v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7255 – Relied upon – bribery outside Section 17A. Discussed at para 5.5.
• Yashwant Sinha v. CBI, (2020) 2 SCC 338 – Referred – cited by appellant; not applicable. Discussed at paras 4.1–4.2.
• B.S. Yeddiyurappa v. A. Alam Pasha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 836; Centre for PIL v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 1373 of 2018 – Referred – pending references; no effect here. Discussed at para 7.

Important Paragraphs of the Judgment

Para-wise summary. For the exact words, refer to the judgment PDF below.

Paras 5.1.1–5.1.2: Section 17A applies only where the offence relates to an official recommendation or decision.

Para 5.4: The view that bribery falls outside Section 17A is consistent across decisions.

Paras 6.1–6.3: A demand for illegal gratification is a pure criminal act unconnected with official duty; investigation was not vitiated.

Para 7: The pending larger-bench reference does not affect cases where Section 17A is not attracted.

Para 8: Sanction before cognizance is valid; delay is at most an irregularity.

What the Ruling Means: Practical Impact

• For anti-corruption agencies: Trap and demand cases can be investigated without Section 17A approval (paras 6.1–6.3).
• For accused public servants: Section 17A objections will not help in bribe-demand cases; defend on facts at trial (paras 6.3, 8).
• For trial courts: Do not stay bribery trials awaiting the larger-bench reference (para 7).
• For sanctioning authorities: Grant sanction before cognizance; delay alone will not void the trial (para 8).
• For complainants: Bribe complaints proceed directly to investigation (paras 5.2–6.3).

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What did the Supreme Court hold in Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan?

It held that no Section 17A approval is needed to investigate a bribe demand and upheld the Section 7 PC Act charge against a constable (paras 6.1–6.3, 8–11).

2. Is prior approval under Section 17A PC Act required in bribery cases?

No. Section 17A covers only official recommendations or decisions; demanding a bribe is not an official function (paras 5.1.1–6.3).

3. Does the larger-bench reference on Section 17A stop bribery trials?

No. The reference does not affect cases where Section 17A is not attracted (para 7).

4. Does delay in Section 19 sanction vitiate a PC Act trial?

No. If sanction is granted before cognizance, delay is at most an irregularity (para 8).

5. Which precedents support this view?

CBI v. Santosh Karnani, Surendra Dhariwal and Anil Daima, along with Kerala High Court decisions (paras 5.2–5.5.1).

Keywords: 2026 INSC 1147, Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan, Section 17A PC Act, prior approval investigation, bribe demand, Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 19 sanction, Santosh Karnani, Anil Daima, Rajasthan ACB, larger bench reference, Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Justice N.V. Anjaria

Judgment Copy

Judgment PDF: 2026 INSC 1147 – Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (Crl. A. No. 4988 of 2026) – Download Judgment PDF

Source: Supreme Court of India.

Read more: Supreme Court · Criminal Law · Anti-Corruption