Before giving nod to investigation of bribe request by police personnel not required under anti-bribery law: Supreme Court

View of the Supreme Court of India. File | Photo credit: The Hindu

“Prior consent to investigate an alleged request for a bribe by a civil servant is not required under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act as the act is unrelated to the performance of official duties protected by law,” the Supreme Court said.

The landmark finding was made by a bench of Justices SVN Bhatti and NV Anjaria in their judgment delivered on October 16, dismissing the appeal of a Rajasthan police constable challenging the framing of corruption charges against him.

Writing the judgment for the bench, Justice Anjaria upheld the decision of the Rajasthan High Court refusing to interfere with the trial court’s order framing charges against Constable Tejaram under Section 7 of the PC Act.

Section 7 of the Personal Data Protection Act as amended in 2018 penalizes civil servants who accept, obtain or attempt to obtain an unauthorized advantage for the improper or dishonest performance of a public duty.

The Supreme Court rejected the constable’s defense that prior consent to investigate or investigate certain offenses relating to decisions or recommendations made by civil servants in the performance of their official functions under Section 17A of the Privacy Act was not received by the investigating agency.

Section 17A deals with investigations or inquiries or investigations into offenses relating to recommendations or decisions made by public servants in the exercise of official functions or duties.

Referring to various judgments, the verdict said that offenses like embezzlement, falsification of accounts, cheating, criminal breach of trust, acceptance of bribes are beyond the ambit of this provision.

“The unequivocal legal position results from the … decision on the scope and scope of applicability of Section 17A of the Personal Data Protection Act, which presupposes prior consent before an investigation or investigation of a public official.

“The very language of the provision outlines and defines the scope of the provision. The operative phrase in the section is ‘performance of official functions or duties,'” it said. However, the court pointed out that the legislature intended to protect the public servant from prosecution by bringing Section 17A into the statute book.

As the section could not be regarded as of “general application”, he said: “For the provisions of Section 17A of the Privacy Act to apply, there must be a ‘decision’ or ‘recommendation’ of a public servant against whom an investigation or inquiry is to be initiated.”

“Such ‘decision’ or ‘recommendation’ is a ‘decision’ or ‘recommendation’ made by such public servant in the performance of his official functions or duties.”

“It is clear from the simple wording of the provisions of Section 17A that the provision is limited to use in situations where a recommendation or decision is made by a civil servant in the performance of his official duties,” he said.

According to case records, Tejaram was posted at the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Rajasthan’s Sirohi.

A fellow constable, Devendra Kumar, in an email complaint dated 22 April 2021, alleged that Tejaram was demanding ₹1.5 lakh on behalf of the police superintendent. The FIR was registered on June 4, 2021 under Section 7A of the Privacy Act and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. Tejaram was arrested on 1 September 2021.

After sanctioning the prosecution under Section 19 of the Act on December 8, 2023, an indictment was filed on January 19, 2024. A special court in Rajasthan’s Pali on 12 September 2024 filed the charge sheet under Section 7 of the PC Act.

Tejaram challenged the order in the high court, which on 26 March 2025 dismissed his review petition, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.

Published – 19 Oct 2026 16:41 IST