Supreme Court: No Prior Approval Needed to Probe a Bribe Demand Under Section 17A of the Anti-Corruption Law
The Supreme Court held that police do not need prior government approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to investigate a public servant accused of demanding a bribe.
The judgment, Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan (2026 INSC 1147), was delivered on October 16, 2026 by a Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria. Justice Anjaria wrote it.
The case involved a police constable in Sirohi, Rajasthan, accused of demanding ₹1.5 lakh. A complaint was sent to the state's Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), and the trial court ordered charges to be framed under Section 7 of the Act. The Rajasthan High Court refused to interfere.
The constable argued that the case was invalid because no prior approval was taken under Section 17A. The Supreme Court rejected this and dismissed his appeal.
The Court said Section 17A protects only offences linked to a recommendation made or decision taken in the discharge of official duties. Demanding a bribe is "a pure criminal act", not an official function, so the section does not apply. The Court added that Section 17A "cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application" (it does not cover every case).
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: Prior Approval for Investigation
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 says the police cannot even begin to look into certain corruption cases against a public servant without first getting approval from the government. It applies only when the alleged offence is linked to a recommendation made or a decision taken by that officer while doing official work. The idea is to protect honest officers from being harassed for genuine decisions, while still allowing real corruption to be punished.
In the Tejaram case, the constable tried to use Section 17A to stop his trial. The Supreme Court made clear that asking for a bribe is not an official decision or recommendation, so the approval filter never applied. The ruling narrows the shield while the larger Bench is still to decide whether Section 17A is valid at all.
Sanction for prosecution of public servants: from CrPC Section 197 to BNSS Section 218
Before a court can begin a criminal case against many public servants, the government (or the authority that can remove them) must give formal permission. This permission is called sanction for prosecution. It exists under two main laws: Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for corruption cases, and Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, now Section 218 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for other offences linked to official duty. Without a valid sanction, the court cannot take up the case.
The Tejaram ruling is about the earlier gate, Section 17A approval before investigation. Students should not mix it up with sanction for prosecution under Section 19, which is a separate step before the trial court takes cognizance. A bribe-demand case may skip the Section 17A filter, but sanction under Section 19 is still generally required before the trial.
- Judgment: Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 1147, delivered October 16, 2026
- Bench: Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria (judgment by Justice Anjaria)
- Alleged bribe demand: ₹1.5 lakh; accused: a police constable in Sirohi, Rajasthan; charge under Section 7 of the PC Act
- Section 7 punishment (after 2018): jail of not less than 3 years, up to 7 years, and a fine
- Section 17A in force from July 26, 2018; approval decision within 3 months (+1 month)
- Split verdict on validity of Section 17A: January 13, 2026 (Justices B.V. Nagarathna and K.V. Viswanathan)
- Section 6A of the DSPE Act, 1946 struck down in 2014; Single Directive struck down in Vineet Narain (1997)
- Section 218 BNSS: 120-day deemed sanction rule