In a move that could impact thousands across the country, the Supreme Court has made it clear that stamp vendors, often seen as small-time intermediaries in government transactions, are public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This significant ruling not only changes the way we look at their responsibilities but also sends a strong message that no one performing public duty is beyond accountability.

A Stamp Vendor Caught in a Legal Storm

The story began with a small yet serious allegation. A licensed stamp vendor was accused of demanding Rs. 2 extra over the printed value of a Rs. 10 stamp paper. It might sound like a minor incident to some, but it soon became a matter of national legal importance. A complaint was lodged with the Anti-Corruption Bureau, which led to a trap operation and a full-fledged trial. The Trial Court convicted the vendor, and the Delhi High Court confirmed the verdict.

But the real twist came when the matter reached the Supreme Court. The vendor argued that he wasn’t a government employee and was merely a licensee earning commission; therefore, he couldn’t be treated as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Supreme Court Looks Deeper Into the Meaning of Public Service

In a landmark judgment, Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan clarified that what matters is not whether someone is on a government salary, but whether they perform a public duty and receive remuneration from the State. And according to the Supreme Court, stamp vendors do both.

The judgment explained that under the Stamp Rules of 1934, licensed vendors purchase stamp papers at a discounted rate. That discount acts as a form of government-approved earnings. The Court said this clearly shows that stamp vendors are being paid indirectly but effectively by the State for carrying out a public responsibility that affects both the government and the people.

The Supreme Court also referred to an earlier ruling in the case of State of Gujarat v. Mansukhbhai Kanjibhai Shah, where it had held that institutions like deemed universities could also be brought under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to their public character and partial state funding.

The Bigger Picture Behind the Judgment

While the Supreme Court eventually acquitted the vendor due to a lack of strong evidence because the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond a reasonable doubt, it upheld an important principle: Anyone who performs a public function and receives any form of government-backed payment is not above the law.

Stamp vendors may seem like small cogs in a vast system, but their role is essential. They handle documents related to property, business, and legal matters, many of which are life-changing for ordinary citizens. By including them under the PC Act, the Supreme Court has not just redefined legal boundaries but also strengthened public trust in the fight against corruption.

Disclaimer: This article is based on a recent Supreme Court judgment and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not serve as legal advice. The facts have been simplified to ensure easy understanding and emotional connection for readers.

Also Read:

Uniform Civil Code is Not Just Law, It’s Humanity, Says Karnataka HC

Supreme Court Says No Trial for Expired Lawsuits

Calcutta High Court Cracks Down on Hecklers Targeting Lawyers