Does every corruption inquiry against a public servant need prior government approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? In Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 INSC 1147, decided on 16 October 2026, a bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria said no. Section 17A, the Court held, cannot be given an "omnibus application": it reaches only offences relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties. A demand for illegal gratification is "a pure criminal act unconnected to discharge of the official functions or duties" — and needs no such approval. The charge framed against the accused constable stood, and his appeal was dismissed.
The allegation: a demand made in a police office
The appellant, a constable posted in the office of a Deputy Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan, had accused a fellow constable of collecting illegal gratification from accused persons. The colleague, in turn, wrote to the Anti-Corruption Bureau alleging that it was the appellant who had demanded ₹1.5 lakh, purportedly on behalf of a superior officer. An FIR followed, charges were framed by the trial court, and the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appellant\'s criminal revision against the framing of charge. Before the Supreme Court, the defence was structural rather than factual: the investigation, it was argued, was void for want of prior approval under Section 17A.
The scheme of Section 17A
Section 17A was introduced by the 2018 amendment to protect honest decision-making. Its text is the key to the judgment: approval is required where the alleged offence is "relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties."
Protected zone
Recommendations and decisions taken in the discharge of official functions — tender evaluations, sanctions, assessments, policy choices — where hindsight should not criminalise judgment without a threshold check.
Unprotected zone
Conduct with no nexus to official functions — such as demanding illegal gratification. There is no official duty to demand a bribe, so there is nothing for Section 17A to protect.
Applying this line, the Court held the provision "cannot be viewed to have an omnibus application" and relied on its precedents in CBI v. Santosh Karnani and Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, both of which treat a bribe demand as falling outside the section.
The sanction point
A second string to the appeal concerned Section 19: the sanction for prosecution was granted in December 2023, after the FIR was registered. The Court saw no infirmity — Section 19 speaks to the stage of cognizance, and the sanction preceded it. The sequencing was at worst an irregularity that did not vitiate the proceedings.
Where the law now stands
| Question | Answer after Tejaram |
|---|---|
| Is 17A approval needed for every PC Act investigation? | No. Only where the alleged offence is relatable to an official recommendation or decision. |
| Does a bribe demand attract 17A? | No. It is a pure criminal act unconnected to official functions. |
| Does sanction after FIR but before cognizance vitiate the case? | No. Section 19 is tested at the cognizance stage. |
| Does the pending reference on 17A stall such trials? | No. Where the section is not attracted on the facts, the trial proceeds. |
Takeaways for practice
- For accused public servants: a Section 17A objection must be anchored in a specific official recommendation or decision to which the allegation relates; trap and demand cases will rarely qualify.
- For complainants and agencies: framing the FIR around the demand and acceptance, rather than around an official decision, keeps the investigation outside the approval gateway.
- For charge-stage strategy: courts remain reluctant to upset charge framing on structural grounds; defects in sanction timing, in particular, are increasingly treated as curable irregularities rather than fatal flaws.
The decision keeps Section 17A true to its purpose — a filter against the harassment of honest administrators, not an amnesty window for demands made under the colour of office.
This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Charge-stage questions under the PC Act are highly fact-dependent.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does Section 17A of the PC Act actually require?
Inserted in 2018, Section 17A bars a police officer from conducting any enquiry, inquiry or investigation into an offence alleged against a public servant, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by that public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties, without previous approval of the competent authority. The provision protects bona fide official decision-making, not criminality dressed in office.
Why did Section 17A not apply to this case?
Because demanding a bribe is not the discharge of any official function. The Court held the alleged demand of ₹1.5 lakh was a pure criminal act with no nexus to any recommendation or decision taken in official capacity, so the gateway condition of Section 17A was never crossed and no prior approval was required for the investigation.
Did the timing of the Section 19 sanction matter?
The sanction for prosecution under Section 19 was granted after the FIR but before cognizance. The Court treated this as a mere irregularity that did not vitiate the proceedings — what Section 19 requires is sanction before the court takes cognizance, and that requirement was met.
Does the pending challenge to Section 17A change anything?
No. The Court noted that a reference concerning Section 17A is pending in other proceedings, but held that it had no bearing here, since on these facts the section was simply not attracted. The framing of charges was upheld and the trial will proceed.