Antipatory Bail in Prevention of Corruption Act : Section 9 : Taking gratification for exercise of personal influence with a public servant – in Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh

Analysis of Section 9: Legal Consequences for Influencing Public Servants

Section 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act deals explicitly with the offense of individuals or entities attempting to influence public servants by intentionally offering or promising any reward, favor, or benefit. This section is pivotal because it aims to maintain the integrity and impartiality of public servants by deterring any undue external influence on their official activities.

The legal consequences laid down under this provision for influencing public servants are severe, reflecting the gravity of the offense. They serve as a deterrent and a punitive measure for those attempting to subvert the due process of public administration for personal gains. The act of influencing can manifest in various forms, such as bribery, gratification beyond legal remuneration, or any other type of inducement.

According to this section, any person who makes or attempts to make any undue influence over a public servant is subject to prosecution and stringent punishment if found guilty. The sanctioned penalties include:

  • Imprisonment, which may be extensive and is typically coupled with fines. The duration of imprisonment is prescribed by the court based on the severity and circumstances of the offense.
  • A fine, the extent of which is left to the discretion of the judge, taking into consideration the magnitude of the influence attempt and the potential damage to public interest it could have caused.
  • Disqualification from holding any public office, which addresses the preventive aspect of the law, ensuring that individuals who endeavor to corrupt the public system are barred from re-entering positions of power and influence.

These legal repercussions are complemented by the broader objectives of the Act, which is to instill confidence in the public regarding the transparency and fairness of government operations. The enforcement of Section 9, therefore, goes beyond punishing the offender—it seeks to reinforce ethical standards within the sphere of public service and deter corruption at all levels of government.

Furthermore, the judiciary plays a crucial role in the interpretation and application of this section, ensuring that the law keeps pace with the evolving methods of corruption. Courts have been known to take cognizance of the sophisticated means employed to influence public servants and have evolved their understanding accordingly to ensure that justice is served, and the public interest is safeguarded.

Case Law: Interpretation by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has been instrumental in rendering judgments that lend clarity to the ambiguities surrounding various legal provisions, including those under the Prevention of Corruption Act. While expounding on Section 9 of the Act, the High Court has approached the issue of influencing public servants with a high degree of scrutiny, emphasizing the nuances of the law in a manner that underscores its intent to disincentivize and punish corrupt practices.

In a landmark judgment, the Court elucidated on the ambit of what constitutes ‘undue influence’ over a public servant. The judgment made it clear that not merely the act of offering a bribe, but even the promise or intent to influence can attract the penal provisions of the Act. The Court has observed that the essence of the offense lies in the disruption of the public servant’s decision-making process, which is deemed sacred and ought to remain untainted by any external factors.

“Influencing a public servant goes to the root of public trust and administration. Any act that seeks to alter or affect the impartiality of those who serve the public is anathema to the principles of democracy and cannot be tolerated,” Justice A.B. remarked in a high profile case before the Court.

The High Court has also taken a strong stance on the interpretation of ‘public servant,’ expanding its definition to cover a wide array of individuals working within the public sector. This expansive interpretation ensures that a larger section of government employees and persons in positions of public trust fall within the ambit of the Act, thereby enhancing the act’s effectiveness in curbing corruption at multiple levels.

In cases where the boundaries of what constitutes an attempt to influence a public servant are unclear, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has employed a principle-based approach rather than a strict literal one. By examining the intent behind the actions and the potential harm to public interest, the Court’s judgments have often provided precedent for assessing similar misconduct.

Additionally, the High Court has recognized the gravity of the situation when it involves a repeat offender or someone with a significant history of attempting to compromise public servants. The interpretation by the Court in these instances signals a clear message that habitual corruption will not only be met with the strictest of penalties but also with public reprimand to further discourage such activities within society.

The Court’s interpretation in these matters often encapsulates a broad view that upholds the Act’s overarching objectives. Through its meticulous analysis and decisive rulings, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has continued to reinforce the Act’s mandate, providing a bulwark against corruption by setting rigorous legal standards and providing a guiding framework for other courts to follow.


List of Most Recommended Lawyers:


1. Advocate Nisha Singh
  • Experience: more than 20 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

2. Advocate Tara Saxena
  • Experience: more than 25 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

3. Advocate Advik Chawla
  • Experience: more than 35 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

4. Advocate Vedant Patel
  • Experience: more than 40 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

5. Advocate Ananya Saxena
  • Experience: more than 30 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

6. Advocate Advait Singhania
  • Experience: more than 50 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

7. Advocate Zoya Khanna
  • Experience: more than 30 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

8. Advocate Vihaan Khanna
  • Experience: more than 25 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

9. Advocate Ahaan Sharma
  • Experience: more than 20 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer

10. Advocate Aanya Mehra
  • Experience: more than 45 years
  • Expertise: Quashing matters
  • Practice Area: Criminal Lawyer