The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Andhra Pradesh government whether a trial court order remanding former chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu will continue to remain valid if corruption charges against him fail for lack of sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The State argued on Tuesday in the Supreme Court that the charges against Mr. Naidu in the skill development scam case was a “clear-cut” one of embezzlement and not remotely related to his duties of public office.
Appearing before a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi and advocate Mahfooz A. Nazki, for the State, said Mr. Naidu cannot avail the protection of Section 17A, which mandates prior sanction for investigation, under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The State argued that the former Chief Minister had indulged in the scam in a deliberate and calculated manner, causing huge loss to the exchequer.
Fabrication of records and misappropriation of funds cannot be termed as official duty within the meaning of Section 17A, Mr. Rohatgi submitted.
On Monday, the court had observed that Section 17A cannot be invoked to sabotage the very objective of the anti-corruption law.
The State further argued that the cause of action and the investigation in the case pre-dated the introduction of Section 17A in July 2018. Mr. Rohatgi said immunity provided under the provision cannot be used retrospectively.
On Monday, senior advocate Harish Salve, for Mr. Naidu, had submitted that Section 17A was a protection tailored for public servants against regime revenge.
Mr. Salve and senior advocate Siddharth Luthra had argued that no sanction was received under Section 17A before suddenly initiating prosecution against Mr. Naidu by registering an FIR, 21 months ago, in the skill development scam case.
The counsel had said the fundamental right of the TDP leader was violated. His arrest was illegal. Mr. Salve quoted a recent judgment of the top court which said a remand order could be set aside if the arrest was illegally made.
“Both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non est as both have been initiated and investigation has continued till date without the mandatory approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was introduced in July 2018,” Mr. Salve had argued the politician’s plea to quash the FIR.
“The provision came into force on July 26, 2018. The enquiry into the case was initiated in 2021 on a complaint dated September 7, 2021 and FIR was registered in December 2021… This FIR would therefore clearly attract the provision,” Mr. Luthra had said.
The petition filed by Mr. Naidu alleged an orchestrated campaign of regime revenge to derail the largest opposition in the State.
Mr. Salve had 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, it was contended.
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”
