Quid pro quo is a Latin phrase meaning “something for something” or “this for that”. In law it describes a benefit given in return for another benefit. No Indian statute defines the phrase, but the idea runs through four areas of Indian law: in a contract the return is called “consideration” (Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872); the Supreme Court uses it to tell a fee from a tax; a promise of preferential treatment or a threat of detrimental treatment linked to sexual harassment at work may amount to sexual harassment under Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, 2013; and an “undue advantage” taken to perform a public duty improperly or dishonestly is an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A quid pro quo is therefore not good or bad in itself. A price paid for goods is a lawful quid pro quo; money paid to a public servant for a favour, or a job benefit offered for sexual favours, is not.
Quid pro quo at a glance
- Meaning: “something for something”; the Supreme Court has called it “a return or counter-payment” (Shirur Mutt, 1954).
- Contract: it is “consideration” (Section 2(d), Contract Act); an agreement without consideration is void, except in the three cases in Section 25.
- Equal value? Not needed: a freely made agreement is “not void merely because the consideration is inadequate” (Section 25, Explanation 2).
- Fee or tax: a fee must be “by and large” a quid pro quo for the services rendered, and a “reasonable relationship” is enough (Sreenivasa General Traders, 1983); a tax is “a part of a common burden”, not a payment for a special service (Shirur Mutt, 1954).
- Workplace: an “implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment” or “threat of detrimental treatment” in a woman’s employment may amount to sexual harassment (Section 3(2), POSH Act).
- Bribery: a public servant who takes an “undue advantage” to perform a public duty improperly faces 3 to 7 years and fine (Section 7, PC Act, 1988); the giver is punishable under Section 8.
Reviewed and updated by Century Law Firm, Delhi – October 2026. Statutory references are to the Acts as in force on that date. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 (India Code text, which carries no “as on” date), the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (as on 1 August 2026), the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as on 21 May 2025) and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (as on 6 October 2025) are quoted from India Code, the Hindi terms from their official Hindi texts on India Code, and the judgments from the Supreme Court’s own copies.
What does quid pro quo mean in law?
Literally, quid pro quo means “something for something”. The correct spelling is quid pro quo; “quid pro quid”, “quo pro quid” and “quid quo pro” are common misspellings. In legal use it means that one benefit is given because another is given or promised in return.
Indian Acts use their own words for the exchange: “consideration” in the Contract Act, “promise of preferential treatment” in the POSH Act, “undue advantage” in the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court uses the Latin phrase most notably to separate fees from taxes: in Mahant Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa (16 March 1954) it said, “Thus in fees there is always an element of quid pro quo which is absent in a tax.” For other Latin phrases used in Indian courts, see Legal Maxims Explained.
Prepared by Century Law Firm from the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the POSH Act, 2013, the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (India Code) and the Supreme Court’s judgments in Shirur Mutt (1954) and Sreenivasa General Traders (1983).
Quid pro quo in contract law: consideration
In contract law, quid pro quo is consideration. Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act reads: “When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise”.
So consideration can be an act, a promise, or holding back from acting; it must be given “at the desire of the promisor”; and it may come from “the promisee or any other person”, not only from the person to whom the promise is made. Under Section 10, agreements are contracts if made by free consent of competent parties “for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object”. The Act’s own example (Section 23, illustration (a)): when A agrees to sell his house to B for 10,000 rupees, B’s promise to pay is the consideration for A’s promise to sell, and A’s promise to sell is the consideration for B’s promise to pay. For the other essentials of a valid contract, see Types of Contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Consensus ad idem.
No consideration: Section 25 and its three exceptions
Section 25 says: “An agreement made without consideration is void, unless—” one of three conditions is met.
| Exception in Section 25 | Conditions in the Act | Example in the Act |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Natural love and affection | In writing and registered, made on account of natural love and affection between parties in a near relation | A promises his son B Rs. 1,000 in a registered writing – a contract |
| (2) Compensation for something already done | A promise to compensate a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor, or something the promisor was legally compellable to do | A finds B’s purse and gives it to him; B promises A Rs. 50 – a contract |
| (3) Time-barred debt | A written promise, signed by the person to be charged or his agent, to pay a debt barred by limitation | A signs a written promise to pay B Rs. 500 on a time-barred debt – a contract |
A gift actually made is not affected (Explanation 1); only a bare promise to give fails: “A promises, for no consideration, to give to B Rs. 1,000. This is a void agreement.”
The return need not be equal, but it must be lawful
The old idea of quid pro quo as an “equal exchange” is not the law in India. Explanation 2 to Section 25 says an agreement freely consented to “is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate”, though the court may consider inadequacy when deciding whether consent was freely given. A horse worth Rs. 1,000 sold for Rs. 10 with free consent is a valid contract (illustration (f)).
But under Section 23, “Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void” – for example where it is forbidden by law, fraudulent, or opposed to public policy. The Act’s illustration (f) to Section 23 is a bribery-type bargain: “A promises to obtain for B an employment in the public service and B promises to pay 1,000 rupees to A. The agreement is void, as the consideration for it is unlawful.” Once a valid contract is made, it must be kept; see Pacta sunt servanda.
Quid pro quo in fees and taxes: what the Supreme Court said
The quid pro quo test is how the Supreme Court tells a fee from a tax. It matters because, as the Court noted in Shirur Mutt, the Constitution places fees in a separate category for purposes of legislation, so a “fee” that is really a tax may be beyond the legislature’s power.
In The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954), a seven-judge bench said that as a tax is not meant to confer a special benefit on any individual, “there is, as it is said, no element of quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority”, while a fee “is generally defined to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some governmental agency”. As there was no correlation between the contribution under Section 76 of the Madras Act and the cost of the Government’s services, “the theory of a return or counter-payment or quid pro quo” could not apply: the levy was a tax, beyond the State Legislature’s power.
The test was later relaxed. In Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh (6 September 1983), on market fees, a three-judge bench held that a fee “must be “by and large” a quid pro quo for the services rendered”, that the correlation is “of general character and not of mathematical exactitude”, and that “All that is necessary is that there should be a “reasonable relationship” between the levy of the fee and the services rendered.” Referring to Article 266 of the Constitution, it said that crediting the money to the Consolidated Fund is not by itself decisive, and that “the element of quid pro quo in the strict sense is not always a sine qua non” for a fee. It added that “the element of quid pro quo is not necessarily absent in every tax”.
| Point | Tax | Fee |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Public purposes; “a part of a common burden” (Shirur Mutt) | “a payment for a special benefit or privilege” (Shirur Mutt) |
| Quid pro quo | Not levied in return for a special service (Shirur Mutt); but quid pro quo is “not necessarily absent in every tax” (Sreenivasa) | “By and large” a quid pro quo; a reasonable relationship is enough (Sreenivasa) |
Quid pro quo sexual harassment at the workplace (POSH Act)
“Quid pro quo harassment” is the common name for sexual harassment in which a benefit at work is offered, or a harm threatened, in connection with sexual conduct. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 does not use the phrase, but Section 3(2) covers the situation.
Section 3(1) says: “No woman shall be subjected to sexual harassment at any workplace.” Under Section 3(2), the following circumstances, among others, “if it occurs, or is present in relation to or connected with any act or behavior of sexual harassment may amount to sexual harassment”: “(i) implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment; or (ii) implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment; or (iii) implied or explicit threat about her present or future employment status; or (iv) interference with her work or creating an intimidating or offensive or hostile work environment for her; or (v) humiliating treatment likely to affect her health or safety.”
Clauses (i) to (iii) describe the quid pro quo kind; clause (iv) what is usually called a hostile work environment. Section 2(n) defines sexual harassment to include unwelcome acts such as “physical contact and advances”, “a demand or request for sexual favours” and “making sexually coloured remarks”. The Act protects an “aggrieved woman”, at a workplace “a woman, of any age whether employed or not” (Section 2(a)), and “workplace” includes government and private offices and “any place visited by the employee arising out of or during the course of employment” (Section 2(o)).
A written complaint goes to the Internal Committee or, where the establishment has no Internal Committee because it has fewer than ten workers or the complaint is against the employer himself, to the Local Committee (Sections 6(1) and 9), “within a period of three months from the date of incident”, or of the last incident in a series, extendable by up to three months for reasons recorded in writing (Section 9); if she cannot write it, the Committee members must help her. If the allegation is proved, the Committee recommends action “for sexual harassment as a misconduct” under the service rules and a deduction from the respondent’s salary to be paid to the woman (Section 13(3)), having regard to factors such as her mental trauma, loss of career opportunity and medical expenses (Section 15); the employer (or, for a Local Committee, the District Officer) must act on it within sixty days of receiving it (Section 13(4)).
Quid pro quo in bribery and corruption
In corruption law the quid pro quo is an “undue advantage” exchanged for a public duty. Section 2(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (inserted in 2018) defines it as “any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration”, and “gratification” “is not limited to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money”.
Section 7, as substituted from 26 July 2018, punishes a public servant who “obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any person, an undue advantage, with the intention to perform or cause performance of public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause forbearance to perform such duty”, or takes it as a reward for doing so, with imprisonment of “not less than three years but which may extend to seven years” and fine. Explanation 1 makes the deal itself the offence: taking or attempting to take an undue advantage “shall itself constitute an offence even if the performance of a public duty by public servant, is not or has not been improper.” The Act’s illustration: “A public servant, ‘S’ asks a person, ‘P’ to give him an amount of five thousand rupees to process his routine ration card application on time. ‘S’ is guilty of an offence under this section.” The advantage may be for the public servant “or for another person”, directly or through a third party (Explanation 2).
| Who | Section of the PC Act | Punishment in the Act |
|---|---|---|
| Public servant who takes an undue advantage for a public duty | Section 7 | 3 to 7 years and fine |
| Person who takes an undue advantage to influence a public servant by corrupt or illegal means or personal influence | Section 7A | 3 to 7 years and fine |
| Person who gives or promises an undue advantage to induce or reward improper performance of a public duty | Section 8 | Up to 7 years, or fine, or both |
| Public servant who takes an undue advantage without consideration, or for inadequate consideration, from a person with business before him | Section 11 | 6 months to 5 years and fine |
A giver who “is compelled to give such undue advantage” is not punished under Section 8, but must report the matter to the law enforcement authority or investigating agency “within a period of seven days from the date of giving such undue advantage”. For the Act as a whole, see The Prevention of Corruption Act.
How the exchange is proved: Neeraj Dutta (2022) and Section 20
In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (15 December 2022), a Constitution Bench held that “Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non” for guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), and that it may be proved by circumstantial evidence where direct evidence is not available. Where the giver offers and the public servant simply accepts, “there need not be a prior demand”, but “mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence”. The case was decided on the wording of Section 7 before the 2018 amendment. Once acceptance of an undue advantage is proved, Section 20 says “it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved” that it was taken “as a motive or reward under section 7”.
Election bribery, plea bargaining and pardon
A gift in return for a vote is also an unlawful quid pro quo. Section 170 BNS (formerly Section 171B IPC) makes it bribery to give “a gratification to any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any electoral right”, or to accept one as a reward, though “a declaration of public policy or a promise of public action shall not be an offence”. Under Section 173 BNS (formerly Section 171E IPC) the punishment is up to one year, or fine, or both, and “bribery by treating” (food, drink, entertainment or provision) is punished with fine only; the offence is non-cognizable and bailable.
The older version of this page said a prosecutor may offer a plea bargain in exchange for cooperation. In India, plea bargaining begins with the accused’s own application (Section 290 BNSS, formerly Section 265B CrPC; see the FAQ below). The nearer parallel to “help in exchange for leniency” is a pardon to an accomplice “on condition of his making a full and true disclosure of the whole of the circumstances within his knowledge relative to the offence” (Section 343 BNSS, formerly Section 306 CrPC). Old and new sections can be matched with the IPC to BNS, CrPC to BNSS Comparison Tool.
Examples: lawful and unlawful quid pro quo arrangements
Most quid pro quo arrangements are ordinary and lawful. The law steps in when what is given in return is forbidden. These examples come from the Acts’ own illustrations or follow directly from their words.
| Arrangement | Lawful? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| A sells his house to B for Rs. 10,000 | Yes | Each promise is the consideration for the other (Section 23, illustration (a), Contract Act) |
| A horse worth Rs. 1,000 sold for Rs. 10 by free consent | Yes | Inadequacy does not make it void (Section 25, Explanation 2) |
| Money promised for getting B a public-service job | No – agreement void | Unlawful consideration (Section 23, illustration (f)) |
| Official asks Rs. 5,000 to process a routine ration card on time | No – offence | Section 7, PC Act, illustration |
| Rs. 10,000 given to an official to get a licence over other bidders | No – offence by the giver | Section 8, PC Act, illustration |
| Promotion promised, or job loss threatened, linked to sexual conduct | No – may amount to sexual harassment | Section 3(2)(i)–(iii), POSH Act |
Used in a sentence (our own example): The market fee was upheld because there was a reasonable quid pro quo between the fee and the services rendered.
क्विड प्रो क्वो का अर्थ हिंदी में (Summary in Hindi)
“Quid pro quo” (क्विड प्रो क्वो) लैटिन भाषा का वाक्यांश है, जिसका शाब्दिक अर्थ है “कुछ के बदले कुछ”। किसी भारतीय कानून में इसकी परिभाषा नहीं है और इसका कोई आधिकारिक हिंदी शब्द भी नहीं है; यह हिंदी अर्थ हमारा सरल अनुवाद है। नीचे उद्धरण चिह्नों में दिए गए हिंदी शब्द इंडिया कोड पर प्रकाशित अधिनियमों के आधिकारिक हिंदी पाठ से लिए गए हैं।
संविदा: भारतीय संविदा अधिनियम, 1872 में इसके लिए “प्रतिफल” शब्द है। धारा 2(घ) के अनुसार जब “वचनदाता” की इच्छा पर “वचनगृहीता” या कोई अन्य व्यक्ति कुछ करता है, करने से विरत रहता है या करने का वचन देता है, तो वह उस वचन के लिए प्रतिफल कहलाता है। धारा 25 के अनुसार “प्रतिफल के बिना किया गया करार शून्य है”, सिवाय तीन स्थितियों के: निकट संबंधियों के बीच प्रेम और स्नेह के कारण लिखित और रजिस्ट्रीकृत वचन; किसी व्यक्ति ने वचनदाता के लिए स्वेच्छा से जो पहले ही कर दिया है, या जो करने के लिए वचनदाता विधिक रूप से बाध्य था, उसकी पूरी या आंशिक क्षतिपूर्ति का वचन; और परिसीमा से वर्जित ऋण चुकाने का लिखित और हस्ताक्षरित वचन। प्रतिफल का बराबर होना ज़रूरी नहीं है, लेकिन विधिविरुद्ध प्रतिफल, जैसे सरकारी नौकरी दिलाने के बदले पैसे, से करार शून्य हो जाता है (धारा 23)।
शुल्क और कर: शिरूर मठ मामले (1954) में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने कहा कि कर में करदाता को कोई विशेष लाभ नहीं मिलता, इसलिए कर किसी विशेष सेवा के बदले नहीं लिया जाता, जबकि शुल्क किसी विशेष सेवा के बदले लिया जाता है। श्रीनिवास जनरल ट्रेडर्स मामले (1983) में कोर्ट ने कहा कि शुल्क और सेवा के बीच उचित संबंध होना पर्याप्त है, गणितीय सटीकता आवश्यक नहीं; और यह भी कि हर कर में quid pro quo का तत्व अनिवार्य रूप से अनुपस्थित नहीं होता।
कार्यस्थल पर उत्पीड़न: “महिलाओं का कार्यस्थल पर लैंगिक उत्पीड़न (निवारण, प्रतिषेध और प्रतितोष) अधिनियम, 2013” की धारा 3(2) के अनुसार लैंगिक उत्पीड़न से जुड़ी ये परिस्थितियाँ भी लैंगिक उत्पीड़न हो सकती हैं: “उसके नियोजन में अधिमानी व्यवहार का विवक्षित या सुस्पष्ट वचन देना” और “उसके नियोजन में अहितकर व्यवहार की विवक्षित या सुस्पष्ट धमकी देना”। आम भाषा में इसे “quid pro quo harassment” कहते हैं। शिकायत आंतरिक समिति को (या जहाँ आंतरिक समिति नहीं है अथवा शिकायत स्वयं नियोजक के विरुद्ध है, वहाँ स्थानीय समिति को) घटना से, या कई घटनाओं में अंतिम घटना से, तीन महीने के भीतर लिखित रूप में करनी होती है; समिति कारण लिखकर यह अवधि तीन महीने तक बढ़ा सकती है (धारा 9)।
रिश्वत: “भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988” की धारा 7 के अनुसार जो “लोक सेवक” अपना लोक कर्तव्य अनुचित रूप से या बेईमानी से करने के आशय से किसी व्यक्ति से “असम्यक् लाभ” प्राप्त करता है, स्वीकार करता है या प्राप्त करने का प्रयत्न करता है, उसे कम से कम तीन वर्ष और अधिकतम सात वर्ष के कारावास तथा जुर्माने का दंड है। 2018 के संशोधन के बाद असम्यक् लाभ लेना अपने आप में अपराध है, भले ही काम अनुचित रूप से न किया गया हो। देने वाला भी धारा 8 के तहत दंडनीय है। नीरज दत्ता मामले (2022) में, जो 2018 के संशोधन से पहले की धारा 7 पर तय हुआ था, संविधान पीठ ने कहा कि मांग और स्वीकृति का सबूत आवश्यक है, जो परिस्थितिजन्य साक्ष्य से भी दिया जा सकता है।
सार यह है कि कानून यह देखता है कि बदले में क्या दिया जा रहा है: वैध वस्तु या सेवा के बदले कीमत या शुल्क वैध है, जबकि लोक कर्तव्य अनुचित रूप से करने के लिए असम्यक् लाभ अपराध है और यौन आचरण से जुड़ा नौकरी का लाभ या धमकी लैंगिक उत्पीड़न हो सकता है।
Frequently asked questions
Quid pro quo means something given in return for something else. No Indian Act defines the Latin phrase; each law uses its own words: “consideration” in Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, “promise of preferential treatment” in Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, 2013, and “undue advantage” in Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Supreme Court has described it as “a return or counter-payment” (Shirur Mutt, 1954).
Literally, the Latin quid pro quo means “something for something”, often translated “this for that”. The correct form is quid pro quo; “quid pro quid”, “quo pro quid” and “quid quo pro” are misspellings of the same phrase.
In plain Hindi, quid pro quo means “कुछ के बदले कुछ” (something in return for something). This is the firm’s own translation; there is no official Hindi term for the Latin phrase. The official Hindi text of the Indian Contract Act uses “प्रतिफल” for consideration, and that of the Prevention of Corruption Act uses “असम्यक् लाभ” for undue advantage.
It is consideration. Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person does or abstains from doing something, or promises to, that act, abstinence or promise “is called a consideration for the promise”. Section 10 requires “a lawful consideration” for every contract; in a sale, the price is the return for the goods and the goods for the price.
Generally not. Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act says “An agreement made without consideration is void”, unless it is a registered written promise made out of natural love and affection between parties in a near relation; a promise to compensate a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor; or a written, signed promise to pay a time-barred debt. A gift actually made is not affected.
No. Explanation 2 to Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act says an agreement freely consented to “is not void merely because the consideration is inadequate”, though the court may consider inadequacy when deciding whether consent was freely given. A horse worth Rs. 1,000 sold for Rs. 10 with free consent is a valid contract.
Yes. Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act speaks of an act, abstinence or promise by “the promisee or any other person”, done at the desire of the promisor, so a third person may provide the return for a promise.
It is the test for telling a fee from a tax. In Shirur Mutt (1954) the Supreme Court said a tax has “no element of quid pro quo between the taxpayer and the public authority”, while a fee is “a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some governmental agency”. In Sreenivasa General Traders (1983) it held that a fee must be “by and large” a quid pro quo, with a “reasonable relationship” to the services, not mathematical exactitude.
It is sexual harassment in which a benefit at work is promised, or a harm threatened, in connection with sexual conduct. Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, 2013 says an “implied or explicit promise of preferential treatment in her employment”, an “implied or explicit threat of detrimental treatment in her employment” or a threat about her present or future employment status may amount to sexual harassment. The Act itself does not use the words “quid pro quo”.
Examples that may fall within Section 3(2) of the POSH Act include a supervisor hinting at a promotion or better posting if a woman accepts his advances, or threatening a bad appraisal, transfer or loss of her job if she refuses. The promise or threat may be “implied or explicit”. Whether a complaint is proved is decided by the Internal Committee on the evidence.
Under Section 9 of the POSH Act, 2013, a written complaint must be made to the Internal Committee, or to the Local Committee where there is no Internal Committee or the complaint is against the employer himself (Section 6(1)), within three months from the date of the incident, or of the last incident in a series. If she cannot write it, the Committee members must give her all reasonable help to put it in writing. The Committee may extend the time by up to three months, for reasons recorded in writing, if circumstances prevented the woman from complaining in time.
No. Quid pro quo only means something given in return for something else; most such arrangements are ordinary contracts, such as a sale for a price. Workplace sexual harassment under Section 3(2) of the POSH Act, 2013 is only one application of the idea; bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is another.
Quid pro quo corruption is the exchange at the heart of bribery: an undue advantage given or taken in return for a public duty done improperly or not done. The public servant who takes it faces 3 to 7 years and fine under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the giver up to 7 years, fine or both under Section 8. Since 2018, taking the advantage is an offence even if the duty is not actually performed improperly (Explanation 1 to Section 7).
It must prove the demand or offer and the acceptance. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 15 December 2022, decided on Section 7 as it stood before the 2018 amendment, the Constitution Bench held that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is “a sine qua non”, that it may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and that “mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more” is not an offence. Since 2018, Explanation 1 to Section 7 adds that obtaining or attempting to obtain an undue advantage is an offence even if the duty is not actually performed improperly. Once acceptance is proved, Section 20 presumes it was taken “as a motive or reward” under Section 7.
No. Under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act an agreement whose consideration or object is forbidden by law or opposed to public policy is void, and a void agreement is “not enforceable by law” (Section 2(g)); the Act’s own example is a promise to pay money for getting someone a public-service job. Giving or promising the money may also be an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and taking it an offence under Section 7.
It can be. Under the Prevention of Corruption Act, “undue advantage” is “any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration”, not limited to money, and Section 7 covers an advantage obtained “for himself or for another person”, directly or through a third party, with the intention of performing a public duty improperly. Whether a particular donation is an offence depends on the facts and on proof of that intention.
Lawful: a house sold for a price (Section 23, illustration (a), Indian Contract Act) or a fee paid for a service. Unlawful, from the Acts’ own illustrations: money promised for getting someone a public-service job (Section 23, illustration (f)), and an official asking Rs. 5,000 to process a ration card on time (Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988).
In a sense, but it begins with the accused, not with a prosecutor’s offer. Under Section 290 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (formerly Section 265B CrPC) the accused may apply within thirty days of the framing of charge; Section 289 (formerly Section 265A CrPC) excludes offences punishable with death, life imprisonment or more than seven years, and offences affecting the socio-economic condition of the country or against a woman or a child.
Conclusion
Quid pro quo means something for something. Indian law uses the idea as consideration in contracts, which need not be equal but must be lawful (Sections 2(d), 23 and 25 of the Contract Act); as the test separating a fee from a tax, now a reasonable relationship rather than an exact match (Shirur Mutt, 1954; Sreenivasa General Traders, 1983); as workplace sexual harassment where a job benefit or threat is linked to sexual conduct (Section 3(2), POSH Act); and as bribery, where an undue advantage is exchanged for a public duty (Sections 7 and 8, Prevention of Corruption Act). In each case the question is what is given, and in return for what.
Sources used for this post: the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (Act 9 of 1872), Sections 2(d), (e), (g), 10, 23 (illustrations (a) and (f)), 25 (Explanations 1 and 2 and illustrations) India Code text a1872-9.pdf (no “as on” date printed) and its official Hindi text H1872-09.pdf (Sections 2(d) and 25 read from the printed pages); the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (Act 14 of 2013), Sections 2(a), 2(n), 2(o), 3, 6(1), 9, 13 and 15, India Code A2013-14.pdf (as on 1 August 2026) and its official Hindi text H2013-14.pdf (Section 3 read from the printed page); the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act 49 of 1988), Sections 2(d), 7, 7A, 8, 11 and 20 as inserted or substituted by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 (16 of 2018) with effect from 26 July 2018, India Code a1988-49.pdf (as on 21 May 2025) and its official Hindi text HH198849.pdf; the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Sections 170 and 173, and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Sections 289, 290 and 343 (India Code, as on 6 October 2025, with the firm’s section-by-section comparison data); and the Supreme Court’s own copies of The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (1954 AIR 282, 1954 SCR 1005, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/933.pdf), Mahant Sri Jagannath Ramanuj Das v. State of Orissa (16 March 1954, 1954 SCR 1046, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/953.pdf), Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh (6 September 1983, (1983) 4 SCC 353, https://api.sci.gov.in/jonew/judis/9730.pdf) and Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (Constitution Bench, 15 December 2022, https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2009/11311/11311_2009_3_1501_40650_Judgement_15-Dec-2022.pdf).
