Supreme Court Expands Liability under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act – PSI Held Accountable for Indirect Bribe

<h3>Overview</h3> <p>The <span class="key-term" data-definition="Supreme Court — India&#39;s apex judicial body that interprets the Constitution and laws (GS2: Polity)">Supreme Court</span> has clarified that a <span class="key-term" data-definition="public servant — any person employed by the government, including police officers, who is bound by duty to act honestly (GS2: Polity)">public servant</span> can be liable for corruption even if he does not personally demand or receive a bribe. The judgment restores a <span class="key-term" data-definition="FIR (First Information Report) — a police document that initiates criminal investigation (GS2: Polity)">FIR</span> against a Karnataka Police Sub‑Inspector (PSI) accused of routing a ₹50,000 bribe through sub‑ordinates.</p> <h3>Key Developments</h3> <ul> <li>Bench of <strong>Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh</strong> set aside the Karnataka High Court order that had quashed the FIR.</li> <li>The Court held that <span class="key-term" data-definition="Section 7 — provision that defines the offence of public servant taking or attempting to obtain an undue advantage (GS2: Polity)">Section 7</span> of the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — legislation that criminalises bribery and corruption by public servants (GS2: Polity)">Prevention of Corruption Act</span> covers attempts to obtain an undue advantage through third parties.</li> <li>Explanation 2 to Section 7 was pivotal; it makes it immaterial whether the advantage is sought for another person or through a middleman.</li> <li>The judgment emphasises that the mere “veiled demand” for illegal gratification, even if the official does not receive the money, satisfies the prima‑facie test of the offence.</li> <li>The FIR, registered by the <span class="key-term" data-definition="Lokayukta — an anti‑corruption ombudsman at the state level in India (GS2: Polity)">Lokayukta</span> police, now proceeds to trial.</li> </ul> <h3>Important Facts</h3> <p>• Respondent 1, <strong>Rangayya</strong>, a Sub‑Inspector at Siruguppa police station, threatened a complainant for allegedly selling ration rice illegally.<br> • Through a subordinate, a demand of ₹50,000 was made on Rangayya’s instruction, with the instruction to “make those boys happy”.<br> • The Karnataka High Court dismissed the FIR on the ground that the PSI neither directly demanded nor accepted the bribe.<br> • The Supreme Court rejected this narrow view, stating that the statutory language of Explanation 2 expressly includes indirect or third‑party corruption.</p> <h3>UPSC Relevance</h3> <p>The case illustrates the breadth of anti‑corruption law in India, a frequent topic in <strong>GS 2 (Polity)</strong>. Understanding the scope of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Explanation 2 to Section 7 — clarifies that the offence includes attempts made through third parties or for the benefit of another person (GS2: Polity)">Explanation 2</span> helps aspirants answer questions on statutory interpretation, federal‑state relations (role of <span class="key-term" data-definition="Lokayukta — an anti‑corruption ombudsman at the state level in India (GS2: Polity)">Lokayukta</span>), and the mechanisms to curb bureaucratic corruption.</p> <h3>Way Forward</h3> <p>• Courts are likely to apply this expansive interpretation to other cases involving indirect bribery, thereby closing loopholes for senior officials.<br> • State anti‑corruption bodies must ensure that complaints against public servants, even when mediated through sub‑ordinates, are investigated promptly.<br> • For UPSC preparation, focus on the interplay between statutory provisions (Section 7, Explanation 2) and judicial pronouncements, as they shape the legal framework governing public accountability.</p>