The statutory protection is meant only to prevent persecution of officials for decisions made in discharge of their duties, the court stressed.
The Supreme Court ruled that public servants caught demanding bribes do not need prior sanction from higher authorities to be prosecuted, stating that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not shield pure criminal acts.
AI-generated summary
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was inserted in 2018 to protect public servants from prosecution for official decisions.
The court stressed that the statutory protection is meant only to prevent persecution of officials for decisions made in discharge of their duties
NEW DELHI: In a significant ruling relating to Prevention of Corruption Act, Supreme Court has said that the shield of prior sanction from higher authorities to prosecute a public servant is not available if they are caught demanding bribes. The court stressed that the statutory protection is meant only to prevent persecution of officials for decisions made in discharge of their duties.
The ruling was given by a bench of Justices SVN Bhatti and N V Anjaria while interpreting Section 17A of the Act, which was inserted in the statute in 2018 and prohibited police or investigating agencies from conducting without official approval any inquiry or investigation into alleged offences committed by public servants while discharging their duties.
Dismissing an appeal by a Rajasthan police constable challenging an FIR and chargesheet against him for allegedly demanding a bribe of Rs 1.5 lakh, the bench said the Section 17A shield cannot have an omnibus application to all public servants facing prosecution for criminal offences.
“The act of demanding a bribe is a pure criminal act, not connected with official functions and not relatable to or having any linkage with recommendation or decision of the appellant in his capacity as public servant,” the bench said, accepting the arguments of Rajasthan additional advocate general Sansriti Pathak.
Writing the judgement, Justice Anjaria said, “In the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the act of the appellant does not fall within the protective umbrella of Section 17A of the Act. It could not be said that the proceedings were vitiated for want of sanction.”
The Supreme Court's High Powered Enquiry Committee (HPEC) has launched a portal for victims and police affected by July protests at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi, to submit complaints. The platform ensures witness confidentiality and prioritizes cases of excessive force.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that internet access is a fundamental right for children, balancing this with a mandate to create a national database for the detection and removal of child sexual exploitation material on digital platforms.
Actor Imran Khan has filed a petition in the Bombay High Court challenging an FRRO notice ordering him to leave India by October 28. Khan, an OCI cardholder, alleges the order lacks due process and violates his constitutional rights.
Actor Imran Khan Pal has petitioned the Bombay High Court to challenge a 'leave India' notice issued by the FRRO. Khan, an OCI cardholder residing in India since age two, argues the notice is arbitrary and violates his constitutional rights to equality and life.
A Patna court sentenced Naushad Ahmed to two years of rigorous imprisonment for pronouncing instant triple talaq. The conviction follows a 2022 complaint involving assault and wrongful restraint, though the court acquitted him of attempted acid attack charges.
North Dakota ranchers and WBI Energy Transmission are before the US Supreme Court in a dispute over $300,000 in legal fees stemming from a natural gas pipeline easement challenge.