No prior approval needed to prosecute a bribe demand, Supreme Court clarifies Section 17A limits

The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of prior approval before investigating a public servant under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 applies only to acts connected with an official 'decision' or 'recommendation', not to an independent act of corruption such as a bribe demand. A police constable, Tejaram, faced prosecution under Section 7 of the Act for allegedly demanding a bribe and argued that the proceedings were void because no prior approval under Section 17A had been obtained before the investigation began. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and dismissed the appeal.

It explained that Section 17A, inserted by the 2018 amendment to protect public servants from investigation over bona fide decisions taken in discharge of official duty, is confined by its own language to offences 'relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken' by the public servant in that official capacity. Demanding a bribe is not a 'decision' or 'recommendation' in that sense — it is a freestanding criminal act with no connection to any official function requiring protection. The safeguard therefore had no application, and the prosecution could lawfully proceed without the prior approval Tejaram had argued for.