Supreme Court Rules No Prior Approval Needed to Probe Bribery Allegations Against Officials

A bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria dismissed an appeal filed by Tejaram, a Rajasthan Police constable, who had challenged the framing of charges against him in a corruption case. In its recently delivered judgment, the apex court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision refusing to interfere with a special court’s order framing charges against the constable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

Section 7 of the PC Act, as amended in 2018, provides for punishment of public servants who obtain, accept or attempt to obtain an undue advantage in return for improperly or dishonestly performing their public duties.

Tejaram had argued that the investigating agency failed to obtain prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act before initiating the investigation. He contended that such approval was mandatory for investigating offences connected with decisions taken or recommendations made by public servants in the course of their official functions.

Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court referred to several earlier judgments and observed that offences such as embezzlement, falsification of accounts, cheating, criminal breach of trust and bribery do not fall within the scope of the provision.

The bench said the legal position concerning the scope and applicability of Section 17A had been clearly established through various judgments. The provision requires prior approval before an inquiry or investigation is initiated against a public servant in cases covered by its terms.

“The language of the provision itself clearly defines and limits its scope of application,” the bench observed, identifying the phrase “discharge of official functions or duties” as the key expression determining when the provision applies.

The Supreme Court acknowledged that the legislature introduced Section 17A with the objective of protecting public servants from legal action arising from the discharge of their official responsibilities. However, it clarified that the provision cannot be treated as universally applicable to every case involving a public servant.

The bench explained that the protection under Section 17A is available only when the public servant under investigation or inquiry has taken a “decision” or made a “recommendation”. Such a decision or recommendation must have been made by the public servant while discharging official functions or duties.

Accordingly, the court clarified that allegations of demanding a bribe do not automatically attract the requirement of prior approval under Section 17A, as the alleged act is not protected merely because the accused is a government employee.

The ruling reinforces the distinction between decisions or recommendations made in the discharge of official duties and alleged criminal conduct that falls outside those functions.

The Tejaram Case

Tejaram was posted at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in Sirohi, Rajasthan. In an email complaint dated April 22, 2021, a fellow constable, Devendra Kumar, alleged that Tejaram had demanded Rs 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police.

Following the complaint, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered on June 4, 2021, under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals with criminal conspiracy. Tejaram was arrested on September 1, 2021.

After sanction to prosecute him was granted under Section 19 of the Act on December 8, 2023, a chargesheet was filed on January 19, 2024.

On September 12, 2024, a special court in Pali, Rajasthan, framed charges against Tejaram for prosecution. He challenged the order before the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed his appeal. He subsequently approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the investigation was invalid because prior approval under Section 17A had not been obtained.

The Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, leaving the High Court's decision intact and allowing the proceedings against him under Section 7 of the PC Act to continue.

The judgment clarifies the limits of the prior-approval requirement under Section 17A and establishes that the provision does not provide blanket protection against investigation into alleged bribery merely because the accused is a public servant.