The Supreme Court on October 3 did not give any immediate relief to former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, who has sought the quashing of an FIR registered against him in the skill development scam case.
Issuing notice to the State of Andhra Pradesh, a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi instead posted the case for further hearing on October 9. It asked the State to produce the complete case records submitted in the High Court.
Mr. Naidu was represented by senior advocates Harish Salve, A.M. Singhvi and Siddharth Luthra, prompting the court to comment that it usually did not allow multiple lawyers to appear for the same client.
Mr. Salve argued that the case related to policy decisions approved by the State Cabinet and cannot be the subject of criminal proceedings. The ₹360 crore allotment for the skill development project was included in the 2015-16 budget.
Mr. Naidu’s lawyers argued that the prosecution did not get the mandatory prior sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act before instituting criminal proceedings against Mr. Naidu. Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Luthra contended that prior sanction from the Governor was required as the decision to undertake the project was part of the official duties of Mr. Naidu when he was Chief Minister. Mr. Naidu’s team claimed the FIRs were motivated.
“No police officer can conduct an enquiry or inquiry or investigation into an act allegedly done by a public servant in the course of discharge of his office without the prior approval of the competent authority,” his petition submitted in the apex court.
However, the court said the question of law involved was whether the protection of Section 17A would extend to cases in which the accused was booked separately under provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The court also debated whether the protection of Section 17A, which was introduced into the Prevention of Corruption Act in a 2018 amendment, would apply to cases in which the cause of action began prior, in this case in 2015.
The special leave petition, filed through Mr. Naidu’s lawyer, advocate Guntur Pramod Kumar, said the FIRs were “an orchestrated campaign of regime revenge to derail the largest Opposition in the State”.
Also read | Legal trouble, political gain: On the arrest of former Andhra Pradesh CM and TDP chief N. Chandrababu Naidu
“The petitioner (Naidu) was suddenly named in the FIR registered 21 months ago, arrested in an illegal manner and deprived of his liberty, motivated only by political reasons. Even though there is no material against him, the petitioner is being made to suffer an illegal and motivated investigation in clear violation of his fundamental rights,” the special leave petition has said.
The High Court had declined to quash the criminal cases filed against Mr. Naidu. It had also refused to set aside the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court’s order to remand him.
The High Court, in its September 22 order, said the probe agency had initiated criminal action against Mr. Naidu after conducting extensive examination of witnesses and collection of documentary evidence following the registration of the crime in 2021. The investigation was at its final stage, the High Court had said.
The case involves alleged misappropriations made in the process of establishment of skill development institutions by Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation in collaboration with private companies.
The CID remand report alleged that Mr. Naidu “indulged in a criminal conspiracy with the intention of fraudulent misappropriation or otherwise conversion of government funds for his own use, disposal of property which was under the control of a public servant, besides engaging in cheating, forging documents and destroying evidence”.
Mr. Naidu argued that his name did not find a mention in the chargesheet. Further, his lawyers had contended in the High Court that the project was functional and the claim that public money was misappropriated did not have any basis.
