Anil Daima Etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2026

The petitioner was a Central Government employee posted within the territorial limits of the State of Rajasthan.

Allegations were made that he had demanded illegal gratification in connection with his position as a public servant.

On the basis of these allegations, offences under Sections 7 and 7A of the Prevention of Corruption Act were registered.

The case was registered and investigated by the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) without seeking consent or approval from the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The petitioner challenged the investigation, contending that only the CBI had jurisdiction to investigate offences against Central Government employees.

It was further argued that prior sanction under Section 17-A from the Central Government was mandatory before any investigation could commence.

The Rajasthan High Court rejected these contentions and upheld the validity of the investigation and charge-sheet.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions and upheld the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.

The Court held that it is incorrect to contend that only the CBI can investigate corruption cases against Central Government employees.

It clarified that State police authorities, including the State ACB, are competent to investigate such offences within their territorial jurisdiction.

The Court examined the scope and object of Section 17-A and observed that it applies only to cases where the alleged offence is directly relatable to recommendations made or decisions taken in discharge of official duties.

The Court categorically held that demand of illegal gratification cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be considered an official act.

Consequently, the requirement of prior sanction under Section 17-A was held to be inapplicable in the present case.

The Supreme Court adopted a purposive and restrictive interpretation of Section 17-A, ensuring that the provision is not misused to stall genuine corruption investigations.

The judgment clearly demarcates the boundary between legitimate official functions and corrupt acts such as bribery.

By excluding illegal gratification from the ambit of “official duty,” the Court strengthened the effectiveness of anti-corruption laws.

The ruling also reinforces the principle of cooperative federalism, affirming the authority of State agencies to act against corruption within their jurisdiction.

Overall, the judgment strikes a balance between protecting honest decision-making and ensuring accountability of public servants.