The statement that the definition of 'public servant' under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA) is illustrative and not exhaustive is accurate. The PCA, 1988, was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the prevention of corruption and for matters connected therewith. A crucial aspect of this Act is the definition of 'public servant' under Section 2(c), as it determines the scope of individuals who can be prosecuted under its provisions.

Section 2(c) provides an expansive definition, listing various categories of persons who fall within its ambit. These categories include, but are not limited to, government employees, employees of local authorities, employees of corporations established by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, judges, arbitrators, and even persons who hold office by virtue of which they are authorized or required to perform any public duty. The language used, such as 'any person who is in the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by the Government for the performance of any public duty' or 'any person who is in the service or pay of a local authority,' indicates a broad intent.

The illustrative nature of this definition means that the categories provided are examples or guidelines, rather than a closed list. The legislative intent behind such a broad definition is to ensure that no individual performing a public duty, who might be susceptible to corruption, escapes the purview of the Act merely because they do not fit neatly into a specific, narrowly defined category. The phrase 'public duty' itself is defined in Section 2(b) as a duty in the discharge of which the State, the public or the community at large has an interest.

Courts have consistently interpreted this definition broadly to cover a wide array of individuals. For instance, in cases involving employees of cooperative societies, private banks, or even individuals temporarily entrusted with public functions, the judiciary has often looked beyond the literal categories to determine if the person was performing a 'public duty' and thus qualified as a 'public servant' under the Act. The Supreme Court has, in various pronouncements, emphasized that the definition is designed to cover all persons who are involved in the administration of public affairs and discharge public duties, irrespective of their formal designation or the nature of their employment (e.g., permanent, temporary, contractual).

Therefore, the definition is not exhaustive in the sense that it does not provide a finite list beyond which no one can be considered a public servant. Instead, it provides a framework and examples, allowing for a flexible interpretation that can adapt to evolving forms of public service and potential avenues for corruption, thereby fulfilling the anti-corruption objectives of the Act.