CourtKutchehry

Rajasthan High Court PC Act ruling Rajasthan High Court: State Anti-Corruption Bureau Can Investigate and Prosecute Central Government Employees Under PC Act

Court clarifies jurisdiction of State ACB in corruption cases involving central employees

Judgment strengthens anti-graft framework, says corruption is not shielded by service affiliation

By Our Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: October 04, 2025:

In a landmark ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has held that the State Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) has the authority to investigate and prosecute Central Government employees under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The decision resolves a long-standing legal debate about whether state-level anti-corruption agencies can act against central employees without prior approval from the Union Government.

The judgment, delivered by a single-judge bench, emphasizes that corruption is a crime against society and cannot be shielded by technicalities of service affiliation.

Background of the Case

The case arose after a Central Government employee challenged the jurisdiction of the Rajasthan ACB to register an FIR and conduct investigation against him under the PC Act.

The employee argued that:

Only the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) or central agencies had jurisdiction to investigate corruption cases involving central employees.
The State ACB could not act without prior sanction from the Union Government.
Section 17A of the PC Act, inserted by the 2018 Amendment, required prior approval before initiating investigation into decisions taken by public servants in the discharge of official duties.

The Rajasthan ACB, however, maintained that:

It has jurisdiction under the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) and the PC Act to investigate offences committed within the state, regardless of whether the accused is a state or central employee.
Corruption is not a matter of service law but a criminal offence, and therefore falls within the jurisdiction of state police agencies.

Court’s Observations

The High Court dismissed the employee’s petition and upheld the powers of the Rajasthan ACB.

Key observations included:

Corruption is a criminal offence, not a service matter
- The Court clarified that corruption cases are not about disciplinary control but about criminal liability.
- Therefore, the distinction between state and central employees is irrelevant when it comes to criminal prosecution.
Jurisdiction of State ACB
- The ACB functions as a specialized wing of the state police.
- Under the CrPC, state police have jurisdiction to investigate any cognizable offence committed within their territory.
Section 17A of the PC Act
- The Court noted that Section 17A requires prior approval only when the alleged act is directly linked to official decisions or recommendations.
- However, in cases of demanding or accepting bribes, no such approval is required.
- The Court cited earlier judgments, including Yashwant Sinha v. CBI (Supreme Court), which clarified the scope of Section 17A.
No immunity for central employees
- The Court categorically stated that central employees cannot claim immunity from state-level investigations.
- To hold otherwise would create a legal vacuum, allowing corruption to go unchecked.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Court relied on several precedents:

R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra (1973) – Illegally obtained evidence is admissible if relevant.
Yashwant Sinha v. CBI (2019) – Clarified the scope of Section 17A PC Act.
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Mubarak Ali (1959) – State police have jurisdiction over offences committed within their territory.

These cases reinforced the principle that anti-corruption laws must be interpreted broadly to ensure accountability.

Implications of the Ruling

The judgment has far-reaching implications:

Strengthens Anti-Corruption Framework
- State ACBs can now act against central employees posted in their jurisdiction without waiting for central agencies.
- This ensures faster action and prevents delays caused by bureaucratic approvals.
Clarity on Section 17A
- The ruling clarifies that prior approval is not required in cases of bribe demands or acceptance, which are common in trap cases.
Boost to State Agencies
- The decision empowers state ACBs, which often handle the bulk of corruption complaints at the grassroots level.
Potential for Wider Application
- The ruling could influence other High Courts and even the Supreme Court in similar cases, creating a uniform legal position across India.

Political and Administrative Reactions

The ruling has sparked political debate in Rajasthan and beyond.

Supporters of the judgment argue that it will make officials more accountable and reduce corruption at the local level.
Critics, however, warn that state governments could misuse ACB powers against central employees for political reasons.

The Union Government has not yet indicated whether it will challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.

Broader Context: Corruption in India

Corruption remains a major challenge in India. According to Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, India ranks in the middle tier globally.

State ACBs play a crucial role in investigating corruption at the grassroots level.
The CBI, while powerful, is often overburdened and accused of selective action.
Empowering state agencies could help decentralize the fight against corruption.

Conclusion

The Rajasthan High Court’s ruling that the State ACB can investigate and prosecute central government employees under the PC Act is a landmark decision. It clarifies the law, strengthens state-level anti-corruption mechanisms, and ensures that no public servant can escape accountability on the basis of service affiliation.

While concerns about misuse remain, the judgment is a strong step towards ensuring that corruption is treated as a crime against society, not a matter of bureaucratic privilege.

Rajasthan HC: ACB Can Probe Central Govt Staff Under PC Act