Corruption & Bribery cases

In Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India [2026 INSC 55], the Supreme Court delivered a split verdict regarding the constitutionality of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act), which was introduced by the 2018 amendment.

The Supreme Court, in P Somaraju v The State Of Andhra Pradesh [2025 INSC 1263], reiterated that mere recovery of currency notes, without proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, is insufficient for conviction. 

In Reena N v. State of Kerala [2025:KER:49923] the Kerala High Court has clarified that the requirement for prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, does not apply when a public servant is arrested during a trap operation.

In Vinod Chandra Semwal v. Special Police Establishment, the Supreme Court of India reaffirmed the principle that a valid government sanction is a mandatory prerequisite for prosecuting a public servant for certain offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

In K.M. Philip v. State of Kerala, the High Court of Kerala adjudicated a key legal issue: whether the State Government is the competent authority to grant sanction for the prosecution of employees of a service cooperative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

In Shankara Bhat and Ors vs. State of Kerala and Ors., the Kerala High Court held that the protection afforded by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA), is exclusively confined to offenses arising from a public servant's recommendations or decisions made in the discharge of their official duties.

The government sanction, under section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), is a prerequisite for a court in ordering an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on a private complaint, against a public servant, the High Court of Kerala states in  C.V. Balan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

In the judgment of T. K. Krishnankutty v. State of Kerala [2025 0 KER 24020], the High Court of Kerala held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for a conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

The courts should refrain from staying conviction of public servants who have been convicted on charges of corruption, under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, says the Supreme Court (SC) in Raghunath Bansropan Pandey v. State of Gujarat.

Mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to trigger the presumption of guilt under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, unless the entire chain of events i.e., the demand, acceptance, and recovery is established, says the Supreme Court (SC) in State of Lokayuktha Police Davangere v C B Nagaraj [2025 INSC 736].