Supreme Court in Tejaram v. State of Rajasthan Clarifies the Scope of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

The appellant, Tejaram, was a constable posted at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirohi, Rajasthan. Devendra Kumar, another constable, alleged that Tejaram had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 lakh on behalf of the Superintendent of Police. Tejaram claimed that the complaint was retaliatory, alleging that he had previously accused Devendra Kumar of accepting illegal gratification from accused persons to allow them to escape during an investigation-related assignment in Madurai. According to Tejaram, Devendra Kumar subsequently lodged a false complaint with the Anti-Corruption Bureau on 22 April 2021. An FIR was registered against Tejaram on 4 June 2021 under Section 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act),¹ and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.² Tejaram was arrested on 1 September 2021 and on 12 September 2024, the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pali, directed that charges be framed against Tejaram under Section 7 of the PC Act, as amended in 2018. The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 12.09.2024 before the High Court, which dismissed the revision petition, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. 

The principal issue was “Whether prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was necessary before investigating an allegation that a public servant had demanded illegal gratification. The Court also considered whether a pending larger-bench reference concerning the validity of Section 17A required it to defer its decision.” 

Tejaram argued that Section 17A³ barred investigation into offences connected with official duties without prior approval. He contended that the High Court wrongly relied on Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh⁴ while disregarding Yashwant Sinha and Others vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,⁵ and referred to the pending consideration in B.S Yeddiyurappa vs. A. Alam Pasha and Others⁶ on whether Sections 17A and 19⁷ were procedural or substantive provisions. The State argued that Section 17A did not grant blanket immunity to public servants and applied only where the alleged offence was linked to an official recommendation or decision. Since the allegation concerned a demand for illegal gratification unrelated to either, prior approval was unnecessary. It also submitted that Section 19 sanction had been granted before the charge-sheet was filed and that the pending larger-bench reference did not prevent the Court from deciding the appeal.

The Supreme Court examined the language of Section 17A. The Court explained that Section 17A of the PC Act requires prior approval before investigating a public servant only when the alleged offence is connected to a recommendation or decision made in the discharge of official duties. The provision also specifies an exception for cases involving a person arrested on the spot for accepting or attempting to accept an undue advantage. It requires the competent authority to communicate its decision within the prescribed period, subject to a reasoned extension. The Court relied on Central Bureau of Investigation v. Santosh Karnani,⁸ which rejected an objection based on the absence of prior approval where the allegation did not concern an official recommendation or decision. It also referred to Surendra Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan⁹ and Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan,¹⁰ which supported the distinction between offences connected with official functions and demands for illegal gratification. The Court further discussed Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala¹¹ and M.R. Simon v. State of Kerala,¹² which, as described in the judgment, recognised that criminal conduct unrelated to official duties falls outside Section 17A. 

The Supreme Court held that Section 17A of the PC Act applies only when the alleged offence is connected to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official duties. In the present case, the allegation against the appellant concerned the demand for illegal gratification, which the Court characterised as a criminal act unrelated to his official functions. Since the essential requirements of Section 17A were absent, the provision did not apply. Applying these principles, the Court held that the allegation against Tejaram concerned the demand for illegal gratification of Rs. 1.5 lakh. The essential conditions for invoking Section 17A were absent. The Court also rejected the contention that the larger-bench reference concerning the validity of Section 17A required it to postpone its decision. Since the provision was inapplicable to the alleged conduct, the appeal could be decided without awaiting the outcome of that case. Regarding Section 19, the Court noted that prosecution sanction had been obtained before cognisance was taken. In the circumstances, any irregularity concerning the sanction did not invalidate the entire proceedings or the trial. The Court clarified that the trial would proceed on its merits, leaving the parties free to raise their respective contentions.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s order. It held that Section 17A of the PC Act was inapplicable because the alleged demand for illegal gratification was unconnected with any recommendation or decision made in the discharge of official duties. The absence of prior approval under that provision therefore did not vitiate the criminal proceedings. The Court also held that the alleged irregularity concerning sanction under Section 19 did not invalidate the proceedings in the circumstances of the case. The trial was to continue on its merits. The judgment determined the applicability of the statutory approval requirement, not Tejaram’s guilt or innocence. It did not resolve the broader question of Section 17A’s validity, which was referred to the larger bench.

Citations

1. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988), s. 7A. ↩︎
2. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860), s. 120B. ↩︎
3. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988), s. 17A. ↩︎
4. Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2024 INSC 41. ↩︎
5. Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 2 SCC 338. ↩︎
6. B.S. Yediyurappa v. A. Alam Pasha, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 836. ↩︎
7. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988), s. 19. ↩︎
8. CBI v. Santosh Karnani, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 427. ↩︎
9. Surendra Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan, Criminal Appeal Nos. 3717–3718 of 2025, Supreme Court of India ↩︎
10. Anil Daima v. State of Rajasthan, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 807. ↩︎
11. Shankara Bhat v. State of Kerala, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 16357. ↩︎
12. M.R. Simon v. State of Kerala, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 7255. ↩︎

Expositor(s): Adv. Stephin Sinu Oommen