ESPNDaniel Dubois vs. Fabio Wardley: Fight results as Dubois stops Wardley in Round 2ESPN DeportesCruz Azul busca salir de su mala racha ante el sotanero FC JuárezThe Jerusalem PostThe forgotten German who saved Jews in Japan - and the diary that resurfaced 80 years laterInquirerSuper Typhoon Champi to enter PAR on Oct. 20; to be named RosalZDF heuteEntdecken Sie das ZDF-NachrichtenstudioUOLO bordel de Vorcaroسكاي نيوز عربيةكارني: "حادث خطير" وراء حريق ضخم بقاعدة عسكرية في ألبرتا매일경제중국 여성들 “AI 기업 대박낼 남편감 찾아요”…美 실리콘밸리 몰린다는데中国新闻网批量“AI小海”卖惨博同情带货 哪些“姨姨妈妈”容易被收割?DW EnglishCanada: Major fire reported at military base in AlbertaInfobaeDefinición “de caño” tras una doble pared y corrida desde la mitad de cancha: los dos goles de Messi en el triunfo del Inter MiamiNew Straits TimesBursa Malaysia expected to maintain cautious bias next week on external uncertainties
The Daily Newsstand · Free, Always
Sunday, October 18, 2026

SC: No need for nod to prosecute govt official seeking bribe

Translate

SC: No need for nod to prosecute govt official seeking bribe

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.”

View the original on Times of India →

KioskNews shows a cleaned-up reading view extracted from the publisher’s page — the original always lives on their site, not ours.