Section 17A of PC Act Inapplicable to Cases of Demand of Illegal Gratification

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and SC Sharma in the case of Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026) held that the protection under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 cannot be extended to cases involving demand of illegal gratification by public servants, as the provision is confined to decisions or recommendations taken in the discharge of official duties. 

What was the Background of Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2026) Case? 

• The petitions arose from a Rajasthan High Court judgment which had upheld the jurisdiction of the State Anti-Corruption Bureau to register and investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees posted within the State. 
• The High Court held that prior consent or approval of the Central Bureau of Investigation was not required for such investigations. 
• The petitioner was facing offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 
• The High Court had answered two questions of law against the accused, holding that the State ACB was competent to register cases under the PC Act against Central Government employees. 
• The High Court further held that charge-sheets filed by the State ACB without CBI approval were valid. 
• The employee argued that no investigation could proceed without prior sanction from the appointing authority, i.e., the central government under Section 17-A of the Act.  
• The petitioner contended that since he was a Central Government employee, only the CBI could investigate corruption cases against him. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

• The Court observed that Section 17-A was enacted with a particular object and applies to enquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken by public servants in discharge of official functions or duties. 
• The Court emphatically stated that Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification. 
• The Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's view that it is incorrect to say that only the CBI could institute prosecution against the union government's employee. 
• The Court clarified that even the state police can proceed with the investigation against Central Government employees. 
• The Court held that the requirement of sanction under Section 17-A only arises when the offending act was committed during the discharge of an official duty. 
• Since the alleged act of illegal gratification was not an act covered under official duties, the requirement of prior sanction could not arise. 
• The Court dismissed the petitioner's plea, affirming the State ACB's jurisdiction to investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees. 

What is Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 

About: 

• Section 17A was inserted into the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 through the 2018 amendment. 
• It mandates that there should be prior sanction from the Government to launch an investigation against a public servant under the Act. 
• The provision states that no police officer can initiate any enquiry, inquiry or investigation against a public servant in relation to any decision or recommendation made in discharge of official functions without prior approval of the competent authority. 
• The competent authority refers to the appropriate authority of the Central or State Government. 

Rationale Behind Section 17A: 

• The provision was introduced to prevent frivolous and vexatious complaints against public servants. 
• It aimed to protect public servants from harassment through malafide investigations. 
• The intent was to shield honest officers who make bona fide decisions in discharge of official duties. 
• Proponents argued it was necessary to prevent policy paralysis that could arise from fear of investigation. 
• The provision sought to create a statutory filter to screen complaints before full-fledged investigation.