Does a police officer need prior approval before investigating an alleged bribe demand? Not under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Supreme Court has held, since such a demand is “a pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official functions or duties”.
New Delhi: A Rajasthan Police constable charged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 must stand trial, the Supreme Court has ruled, dismissing his appeal. Section 17A, which makes prior approval necessary before a police officer investigates certain offences by public servants, does not cover an allegation of demanding a bribe, the Court held, because such a demand has no connection with the discharge of official duty. The allegations against him are untested, the Court has expressed no view on their merits, and the presumption of innocence applies [Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan].
The judgment of 16 October 2026 came from a Bench of Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, with Justice Anjaria writing it, in a criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025. Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari appeared for the appellant and Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak for the State of Rajasthan.
The allegation against the constable
The appellant, Tejaram, was a constable in the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi. FIR No. 174 of 2021 was registered on 4 June 2021 on the complaint of another constable, who alleged that a bribe of Rs 1.5 lakh was demanded in the name of the Superintendent of Police. The case was registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant was arrested on 1 September 2021. His own version is that the complainant had taken gratification from certain accused persons and then sent a false email to the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Sanction under Section 19 of the Act was granted on 8 December 2023 and a chargesheet filed on 19 January 2024. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali framed a charge under Section 7 of the Act as amended in 2018 on 12 September 2024, and the Rajasthan High Court dismissed his revision petition on 26 March 2025. Before the Supreme Court he argued that prior approval under Section 17A was mandatory and that its absence could not be cured later; the State answered that Section 17A gives no blanket immunity and does not reach conduct unrelated to official functions.
Where Section 17A stops
Justice Anjaria held that the section cannot be read as having omnibus application. It operates only where a decision or recommendation made by the public servant in discharge of official duties is the subject of the offence, and the alleged bribe demand did not meet that test. The Court called it:
a pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official functions or duties.
A reference on the validity of Section 17A is pending, but the Bench said it was no obstacle: the section was not attracted on these facts, so the appeal could be decided without waiting. The Court concluded:
Section 17A of the PC Act would not be attracted in the facts of the case
The provision, and the rulings the Bench traced
The 2018 amendment inserted Section 17A. Unless prior approval is obtained, it bars a police officer from conducting any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence alleged against a public servant where the offence relates to a recommendation made or decision taken in the discharge of official functions. A proviso exempts arrests on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage. The validity of the provision is the subject of a reference made on 13 January 2026 in W.P.(C) No. 1373 of 2018 (Centre for Public Interest Litigation), which the Bench noted was pending.
Among the earlier decisions, CBI v. Santosh Karnani (17 April 2023), a Section 7 case, had observed:
A prior approval or sanction to investigate such an officer in a trap case is likely to defeat the very purpose of trap
The Bench also recalled Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, which concerned demand of illegal gratification under Sections 7 and 7A and in which the Court had said:
Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.
It also cited with approval the Kerala High Court’s decision in Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala, which held that offences unconnected with official duty, such as receiving bribes, lie outside Section 17A.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Acquits Patwari In PC Act Bribe Case, Holds Demand And Acceptance Of Bribe Not Proved
Sanction, and the road ahead
The appellant had also questioned the timing of the sanction under Section 19. The Court found that sanction was obtained before cognizance and that any irregularity would not vitiate the proceedings, and that the absence of prior approval under Section 17A did not vitiate the initiation of criminal proceedings. The High Court’s order of 26 March 2025 was upheld, pending interlocutory applications were held not to survive, and the trial will go on to be decided on merits. Nothing in the judgment decides whether the alleged demand was actually made.
The ruling keeps apart two things that are often run together: the protection Section 17A gives for decisions taken in office, and the ordinary criminal law on taking or demanding a bribe. Investigators need no prior approval for an allegation of bribe demand, in line with Santosh Karnani and Anil Daima, while the constitutional challenge to the section itself is left to the larger Bench.
Case Title: Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan [Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11709 of 2025]
Bench: Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Abhimanyu Bhandari for the appellant; Additional Advocate General Sansriti Pathak for the State of Rajasthan