With reference to the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Supreme Court ruling, consider the following statements: 1. Section 17A of the Act governs the requirement for prior approval for investigations. 2. The Supreme Court ruled that prior approval is mandatory for all bribe investigations regardless of official duties. 3. The case involved a Rajasthan police constable accused of demanding a bribe. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

Supreme Court rules prior approval unnecessary for investigating Rajasthan constable's ₹1.5 lakh bribe demand

GS2Polity · Governance · IR· Judiciary & landmark judgments· Prelims + Mains· 19 October 2026

Judicial review of administrative accountability: a GS2 case study on the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Why in news

The Supreme Court ruled that prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is unnecessary for investigating bribe demands unrelated to official duties.

Background

A Supreme Court Bench of Justices S.V.N. Bhatti and N.V. Anjaria dismissed an appeal by Tejaram, a Rajasthan police constable. The court addressed an allegation of a ₹1.5 lakh bribe demand made on April 22, 2021.

Facts for Prelims

Act / BillSection 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act governs the requirement for prior approval for investigations.
PostThe case involved a Rajasthan police constable accused of demanding a ₹1.5 lakh bribe.
BodyThe Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal regarding the investigation's procedural requirements.

Prelims practice question

With reference to the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Supreme Court ruling, consider the following statements:

Section 17A of the Act governs the requirement for prior approval for investigations.
The Supreme Court ruled that prior approval is mandatory for all bribe investigations regardless of official duties.
The case involved a Rajasthan police constable accused of demanding a bribe.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a)1 only
(b)3 only
(c)1 and 2 only
(d)1 and 3 only

Show answer

Answer: (d) 1 and 3 only — Statements 1 and 3 are correct. Statement 2 is incorrect: The court ruled prior approval is unnecessary for bribe demands unrelated to official duties.

For Mains

Q. Discuss the balance between procedural safeguards for civil servants and the necessity of swift investigations into corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Dimensions to cover in your answer

Legal ambiguity: Clarifying the scope of 'official duties' to prevent misuse of Section 17A protections
Accountability vs. Protection: Balancing the immunity of public servants with the need for transparent anti-corruption enforcement

Keywords: Judicial Review · Prevention of Corruption Act · Administrative Accountability · Procedural Safeguards · Public Integrity

Read the full news →Report a mistake in this note How notes are made Source: The Hindu ↗Also: GS3 · Security forces & agencies

More Polity & Constitution notes

Dhal Singh Bisen sworn in as Uttarakhand Governor at Lok Bhavan · 19 October 2026
Cabinet accepts report conceding all charges on KIIFB's ₹1 lakh crore projects · 19 October 2026
Users challenge deletion of 73 lakh voters as officers allegedly skip door-to-door surveys · 18 October 2026
Maharashtra chief electoral officer requests ECI to modify Form 6 for re-registering voters · 18 October 2026
Chief Justice of India Justice Surya Kant will inaugurate the permanent bench · 18 October 2026
Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance reject Union Home Ministry's 32-page proposal · 18 October 2026

All Polity & Constitution current affairs →

Something wrong, or something missing?

Spotted a mistake in a note, or want a topic, format or PDF that would help your preparation? Write to us. We read every mail and fix errors fast.

Report a mistake →Ask for something →[email protected]

This note is generated automatically from SatyaDheesh's news feed and mapped to the UPSC CSE syllabus. Check facts against the original report or PIB before using them in an answer.