Introduction:

In Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 108, the Supreme Court of India delivered an important clarification on the scope and purpose of Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice S.C. Sharma decisively held that the statutory protection of prior sanction under Section 17-A cannot be invoked in cases involving the demand of illegal gratification by a public servant. The Court emphasised that Section 17-A is a narrowly tailored provision meant to protect bona fide recommendations or decisions taken in the discharge of official duties, and not acts of corruption such as demanding or accepting bribes, which can never form part of lawful official functions.

The case arose from a challenge to a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had upheld the authority of the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) to register and investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees posted within the State, without requiring prior approval of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The appellant, a Central Government employee, was facing prosecution under Sections 7 and 7A of the PC Act, which criminalise the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant advanced a two-fold challenge. First, it was argued that the State ACB lacked jurisdiction to investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees and that such cases could be instituted only by the CBI. Second, it was contended that no enquiry, inquiry, or investigation could be commenced without prior sanction from the appointing authority, namely the Central Government, as mandated under Section 17-A of the PC Act.

Rejecting both contentions, the Supreme Court affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s view and clarified the true ambit of Section 17-A. The judgment assumes significance not only for its interpretation of Section 17-A but also for its reaffirmation that anti-corruption laws must be interpreted in a manner that strengthens accountability rather than shielding corruption behind procedural barriers.

Arguments on Behalf of the Petitioner (Accused Public Servant):

The petitioner, a Central Government employee posted in Rajasthan, challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him on multiple legal grounds, all of which were aimed at questioning the jurisdiction of the investigating agency and the legality of the investigation itself.

1. Lack of Jurisdiction of the State ACB

The primary contention of the petitioner was that only the Central Bureau of Investigation was competent to register and investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees. It was argued that since the petitioner was appointed by the Union Government and was serving in a Central Government post, the State Anti-Corruption Bureau could not assume jurisdiction over him.

According to the petitioner, allowing State agencies to investigate Central Government employees would undermine the federal structure and lead to administrative chaos, with different States initiating criminal proceedings against Union officers without coordination or consent from the Centre. It was submitted that such investigations required either the consent of the Central Government or a formal entrustment of investigation to the CBI under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act.

2. Invalidity of Charge-Sheet Without CBI Approval

Building upon the jurisdictional challenge, the petitioner argued that the charge-sheet filed by the State ACB was invalid in law, as it was not approved or authorised by the CBI or the Central Government. Since the petitioner was a Central Government employee, the entire prosecution, according to him, stood vitiated for want of proper authority.

The petitioner relied on the premise that corruption cases involving Central Government servants are a special category and require centralised investigation to ensure uniformity and fairness.

3. Mandatory Prior Sanction Under Section 17-A of the PC Act

The most significant argument advanced by the petitioner related to Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was inserted by the 2018 amendment. The petitioner contended that Section 17-A imposes a complete bar on any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation against a public servant without prior approval of the competent authority, where the alleged offence relates to any recommendation made or decision taken in the discharge of official functions or duties.

It was argued that the protection under Section 17-A is intended to prevent frivolous and motivated investigations against honest officers and that the provision must be given a broad interpretation. According to the petitioner, since the alleged acts were connected with his official position, prior sanction from the appointing authority (the Central Government) was mandatory before any investigation could proceed.

The petitioner maintained that the failure to obtain such sanction at the threshold rendered the entire investigation illegal and liable to be quashed.

Arguments on Behalf of the Respondent State:

The State of Rajasthan, supporting the judgment of the High Court, strongly opposed the petitioner’s submissions and argued that the challenge was an attempt to misuse procedural safeguards to derail a legitimate anti-corruption prosecution.

1. Competence of State Police and ACB Under the PC Act

The State contended that the Prevention of Corruption Act is a central legislation, but it does not restrict investigation exclusively to the CBI. The Act can be enforced by any police authority authorised under law, including State police forces and Anti-Corruption Bureaus.

It was argued that the mere fact that the accused was a Central Government employee did not oust the jurisdiction of the State ACB, particularly when the alleged offence was committed within the territorial limits of the State. The State relied on settled legal principles to assert that State police are competent to investigate offences under central laws unless expressly barred.

2. No Requirement of CBI Approval

The respondent State submitted that there is no statutory requirement under the PC Act mandating that investigations against Central Government employees must be conducted only by the CBI. The insistence on CBI approval, according to the State, was legally unfounded and unsupported by any provision of law.

It was emphasised that the Rajasthan High Court had rightly held that the charge-sheets filed by the State ACB were valid and lawful.

3. Limited Scope of Section 17-A

On the issue of Section 17-A, the State argued that the provision has a limited and specific scope. It applies only where the alleged offence is directly relatable to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties.

The State submitted that demanding or accepting illegal gratification can never be considered an official act. Such conduct is inherently illegal and falls completely outside the scope of lawful official duties. Therefore, Section 17-A could not be invoked to stall or invalidate the investigation in a bribery case under Sections 7 and 7A of the PC Act.

Judgment of the Supreme Court:

After carefully considering the rival submissions and examining the statutory framework, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment in its entirety. The Court’s reasoning addressed each contention raised by the petitioner and provided much-needed clarity on the interpretation of Section 17-A.

1. State ACB’s Jurisdiction Over Central Government Employees

The Supreme Court unequivocally held that it is incorrect to suggest that only the CBI can institute prosecution against a Central Government employee. The Court affirmed that State police authorities and Anti-Corruption Bureaus are competent to investigate offences under the PC Act, even when the accused is a Central Government employee, provided the offence is committed within the State’s jurisdiction.

The Court endorsed the Rajasthan High Court’s view that there is no legal embargo preventing State agencies from investigating such offences and that the argument of exclusive CBI jurisdiction was misconceived.

2. No Illegality in Charge-Sheets Filed Without CBI Approval

Rejecting the argument that the charge-sheets were invalid for want of CBI approval, the Supreme Court held that the PC Act does not mandate any such approval. The Court clarified that the legality of an investigation depends on statutory compliance, not on the status of the employer of the accused public servant.

3. Interpretation and Scope of Section 17-A

The most significant part of the judgment concerns the interpretation of Section 17-A. The Supreme Court carefully analysed the legislative intent behind the provision and observed:

“Section 17-A came to be enacted with a particular object. Section 17-A talks about enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of official functions or duties. Section 17-A by any stretch of imagination cannot be applied to cases of demand of illegal gratification.”

The Court held that the protection of prior sanction under Section 17-A arises only when the alleged offence is intrinsically linked to an official decision or recommendation. Acts such as demanding or accepting bribes are neither decisions nor recommendations, nor can they ever form part of official duties.

Since the petitioner was accused of offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the PC Act, which specifically deal with illegal gratification, the Court concluded that no prior sanction under Section 17-A was required. The alleged acts were plainly outside the scope of lawful official conduct, and therefore, the statutory protection could not be invoked.

The Supreme Court thus dismissed the plea and allowed the investigation and prosecution to proceed in accordance with law.