Stamp Vendor Commission Issues - Supreme Court Judgment | LegalParihar

Introduction A Judgment That Raises More Questions Than It Answers

On May 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered its ruling in Aman Bhatia vs. State (GNCT of Delhi), where it held that licensed stamp vendors are “public servants” under Section 2(c)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).

The case centered on an incident dating back nearly two decades, in which Aman Bhatia—a licensed stamp vendor—was accused of overcharging ₹2 on a ₹10 stamp paper. While the Court acquitted Bhatia due to insufficient evidence of bribery, the bench, comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and P.S. Narasimha, went further to clarify that stamp vendors, though not government employees, perform a public duty and are remunerated indirectly by the state, thus falling under the ambit of the PC Act.

This ruling was hailed in some circles as a progressive recognition of the role stamp vendors play in India’s fiscal and legal infrastructure. But here's the catch: recognition without reform is a hollow gesture—especially when that recognition comes bundled with criminal liability but no protections, no benefits, and no policy changes.

What the Judgment Said—And What It Didn't

Key Findings of the Court:

• Stamp Vendors = Public Servants
• The Court ruled that licensed stamp vendors, though appointed through administrative processes and operating on commission, perform functions in aid of the state’s revenue system, and hence fall under Section 2(c)(i) of the PC Act.
• Public Duty Trumps Employment Status
• The judgment emphasized that it is the nature of the duty performed—not the manner of appointment or the form of remuneration—that determines public servant status.
• Acquittal Due to Lack of Evidence
• Despite the classification, the Court acquitted Bhatia because the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of a bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The overcharge allegation remained unsupported by reliable testimony or material evidence.

What the Judgment Overlooked:

What the Court did not address—and perhaps could not, within the limits of the legal question before it—was the grinding reality of stamp vendors' lives, and how the law treats them not as public servants deserving of support, but as convenient scapegoats when systemic inefficiencies show up at the public counter.

1. Institutionalizing Exploitation: ₹100 a Week

Licensed stamp vendors currently earn a 2% commission on the face value of the stamps they sell. The government has not revised this rate in decades.

There’s also a weekly procurement limit: ₹5,000 worth of stamps per vendor.

So even if a vendor sells their full quota—which many don’t—they earn just ₹100 per week, or ₹400 a month.

This amount is less than what many spend commuting to the treasury and back.

2. Bureaucratic Burdens That Drain Time and Money

The procurement of stamp stock isn’t digital or streamlined. It involves:

• Day 1: Vendor goes to the treasury to submit a challan.
• Day 2 (or later): Vendor goes again to collect the stamps after approval.

Manual register maintenance of stock and sales is still mandatory in many regions.

All this is done at the vendor’s own expense and time, with no system of reimbursement, allowance, or support. Miss a day or encounter a public holiday, and the vendor loses business—and possibly a week’s income.

3. No Infrastructure, No Respect

Most vendors work without any assigned booths or shelters. In district courts, sub-registrar offices, or collectorates, you’ll often find stamp vendors:

• Sitting under open skies,
• Behind a folding table and plastic chair,
• With a laptop, inkjet printer, and mobile hotspot,
• Praying the weather, power, and stamp stock don’t all fail at once.

The state relies on these people for its own revenue generation, yet offers them no infrastructure beyond a piece of paper called a license.

4. The Catch-22 of Digital Transition

With India pushing for e-governance and digital payments, e-stamping is becoming more prevalent. But instead of being brought into the digital loop, most traditional stamp vendors are being left behind.

• No formal training is offered.
• No government-issued equipment is provided.
• Many vendors spend from their own pocket to digitize.

And yet, when they charge a nominal service fee, they face accusations of overcharging. Some have even lost their licenses due to citizen complaints driven by misunderstanding, not malice.

5. A Kafkaesque Liability: The Story of Ramesh

Meet Ramesh, a licensed stamp vendor in Delhi.

He travels twice a week to the treasury: once to submit a challan for ₹5,000 worth of stamps, and again to collect them.

He works in an open area, under the sun, using his own laptop and printer.

He sells the full ₹5,000 quota, earning just ₹100 per week.

He’s not eligible for health insurance, pension, or even basic rights under labor law.

But under the new interpretation of the law, if he charges ₹2 extra—perhaps to recover printing paper or travel costs—he can be:

• Arrested under the PC Act,
• Jailed for up to a year,
• Fined, and
• Have his license revoked, thereby losing his livelihood entirely.

This is not justice. It’s a state-sanctioned trap.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Disconnect Between Law and Life

The Supreme Court's recognition of stamp vendors as public servants might seem legally accurate, but it misses the forest for the trees. It ignores the wider policy vacuum in which these workers operate:

• No job security
• No social protections
• No voice in policy
• No seat at the digital table

Instead of offering protection or dignity, the judgment extends only penal exposure. A legal classification without systemic support is not empowerment—it’s institutional abandonment.

If the government and judiciary genuinely believe that stamp vendors are public servants, then policy must follow the law:

• Increase their commission.
• Digitize procurement.
• Offer basic infrastructure.
• Provide training.
• Ensure social security.

Until then, calling stamp vendors “public servants” is not a step forward. It’s just legal lip service—and it leaves the real issues where they’ve always been: ignored, unfunded, and unresolved.

- Abihshek Singh Parihar