Legal Review and Analysis of Anil Daima vs State of Rajasthan 2026 INSC 72
Synopsis
This Supreme Court judgment addresses a significant jurisdictional question under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It clarifies whether the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of a State government possesses the legal authority to investigate, register a case, and file a chargesheet against an employee of the Central Government for an offense committed within the State's territory, or whether such power rests exclusively with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The Court, dismissing the petition, upheld the concurrent jurisdiction of the State agency and distinctly delineated the limited application of the mandatory prior approval requirement under Section 17-A of the Act.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Case Title: Anil Daima etc. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
INSC Citation: 2026 INSC 72
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Nature: Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
Appeal Source: Arising from the common judgment and order dated 03.10.2025 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRMP Nos. 450 & 451 of 2025.
Date of Judgment: January 19, 2026
Disposition: Special Leave Petitions dismissed.
2. Legal Framework & Relevant Statutes
The judgment centrally interprets the following statutory provision:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act): The entire dispute revolved around the investigative jurisdiction under this Act.
Sections 17 & 17-A: These were the core provisions examined. While the judgment does not detail Section 17 (which deals with persons authorized to investigate), the entire controversy pertained to the authority of police officers vis-à-vis the accused's employer (State or Centre). Section 17-A, introduced by an amendment, was the focal point of the petitioners' alternate argument.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Provides the general framework for territorial jurisdiction of police stations and courts, which forms the backdrop for the State ACB's authority.
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946: Governs the powers and jurisdiction of the CBI. The judgment implicitly affirms that this Act does not create an exclusive jurisdiction for the CBI for all central government employees, allowing for concurrent jurisdiction with state agencies.
Related Precedents:
The order notes that the High Court undertook a "review of various decisions of this Court" to reach its conclusion. While specific case names are not listed in the provided excerpt, the Supreme Court's dismissal affirms the High Court's application of established legal principles concerning the jurisdiction of police forces and the interpretation of the PC Act.
3. Brief Relevant Facts
The petitioners, who are employees of the Central Government, were implicated in a criminal case registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) of Rajasthan for allegedly demanding and accepting illegal gratification (a bribe).
The offense was alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Rajasthan.
The petitioners challenged the ACB's jurisdiction before the Rajasthan High Court, contending that as Central Government employees, only the CBI could investigate offenses under the PC Act against them, and that the ACB's actions without CBI's approval were void.
The High Court, vide its common order dated October 3, 2025, rejected this contention, holding that the State ACB was fully competent to investigate and prosecute.
The petitioners then filed Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court, raising the same jurisdictional challenge and alternatively seeking protection under Section 17-A of the PC Act.
4. Issues Before the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed and addressed the following legal issues, as crystallized by the High Court:
Whether the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) is authorized to register a case and investigate an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act allegedly committed by a Central Government employee within the State's territory, or whether such jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI)?
Whether a chargesheet filed by the State ACB against a Central Government employee, without obtaining prior approval/consent of the CBI, is valid in law for the commencement of a trial?
(A subsidiary issue raised during arguments) Whether the protection of prior approval under Section 17-A of the PC Act is applicable to the facts of the present case involving an allegation of illegal gratification?
5. Ratio Decidendi & Supreme Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, affirming the High Court's judgment. The core legal reasoning is as follows:
Concurrent Jurisdiction of State Police: The Court held that there is no statutory bar under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, or any other law, that reserves the exclusive power to investigate offenses against Central Government employees to the CBI. A State police agency, like the ACB, derives its power from the Code of Criminal Procedure and has the jurisdiction to investigate any cognizable offense committed within its territorial limits, irrespective of the employer of the accused. The offense of corruption is committed against the State's governance and society within its territory, empowering its agency to act.
Inapplicability of Section 17-A: The Court gave a clear and restrictive interpretation to Section 17-A. It held that this provision is enacted with a specific object: to protect public servants from unnecessary harassment concerning decisions or recommendations made in the discharge of official functions or duties. It requires prior government approval before an inquiry or investigation into such acts.
The Court categorically ruled that a case involving the demand of illegal gratification (bribery) does not fall within the ambit of Section 17-A. Accepting a bribe is not an act performed in the "discharge of official functions or duties"; it is an abuse of that position for personal gain. Therefore, the mandatory prior approval under Section 17-A was not required for the ACB to investigate the petitioners.
6. Legal Principles Established/Clarified
Principle of Territorial Jurisdiction for Investigation: The judgment reinforces that the primary determinant of a police agency's investigative jurisdiction is the location where the offense is committed, not the administrative affiliation (State or Centre) of the accused person. State ACBs have concurrent jurisdiction with the CBI over PC Act offenses occurring within their territory.
Interpretation of Section 17-A, PC Act: The Supreme Court authoritatively clarified the scope of Section 17-A. It is a safeguard for official decision-making, not a shield for corrupt acts. The provision applies only to inquiries into offenses "relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken" in an official capacity. Straightforward allegations of bribery, theft, or other criminal acts not constituting an official decision are outside its purview.
7. Court's Examination & Analysis
The Court's analysis was succinct but decisive:
Examination of Jurisdictional Claim: It implicitly examined the statutory scheme of the PC Act and the CrPC and found no provision that ousts the jurisdiction of a State police officer to investigate a cognizable offense merely because the accused is a central employee. The Court endorsed the High Court's detailed analysis on this point.
Textual and Purposive Analysis of Section 17-A: The Court engaged in a textual reading of Section 17-A, focusing on the phrases "recommendations made or decision taken" and "in discharge of his official functions or duties." It then applied a purposive interpretation, aligning with the legislative intent to protect bona fide administrative actions, not to create a procedural hurdle for investigating blatant corruption like on-the-spot bribery demands.
8. Critical Analysis & Final Outcome
Critical Analysis:
This judgment is a robust affirmation of federal principles in criminal investigation. It prevents the creation of a privileged class of government employees who could only be investigated by a central agency, thereby streamlining the process of tackling corruption at the grassroots level. The interpretation of Section 17-A is particularly crucial; it prevents the misuse of this provision to stall investigations in clear-cut bribery cases, ensuring that the amendment meant to protect honest decision-making does not become a loophole for the corrupt.
Final Outcome:
The Special Leave Petitions were dismissed.
The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.
It was conclusively held that:
a) The Rajasthan ACB had full jurisdiction to investigate the petitioners (Central Government employees) and file the chargesheet.
b) The requirement of prior approval under Section 17-A of the PC Act was not attracted to the facts of the case involving an allegation of illegal gratification.
(MCQs)
1. As per the Supreme Court's ruling in Anil Daima, what is the primary determinant of a State ACB's jurisdiction to investigate an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act?
a) The administrative affiliation (State or Centre) of the accused public servant.
b) The prior approval of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
c) The territorial location where the offense was allegedly committed.
d) The rank and designation of the accused public servant.
2. The Supreme Court held that the mandatory prior approval under Section 17-A of the PC Act is not required in which of the following situations?
a) When investigating a decision to award a contract taken by a public servant.
b) When investigating a recommendation for promotion made by a public servant.
c) When investigating a case involving the arrest of a person while demanding a bribe.
d) When investigating allegations against a former public servant.
3. The legal principle established by this judgment regarding the jurisdiction of the CBI and State ACB is best described as?
a) Exclusive Jurisdiction of CBI over central employees.
b) Concurrent Jurisdiction based on territory of the offense.
c) Hierarchical Jurisdiction where CBI must supervise state ACB.
d) No jurisdiction for state ACB under the PC Act.
4. According to the judgment, Section 17-A of the PC Act is designed to protect public servants concerning?
a) Any criminal allegation arising during their service.
b) Acts of omission or commission in their personal capacity.
c) Recommendations or decisions taken in the discharge of official duties.
d) Allegations of accumulating disproportionate assets.