Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on September 19 reserved judgment on the petition filed by former Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu seeking that the FIR filed by the A.P. Crime Investigation Department (CID) in the ‘skill development scam’ case be quashed and the judicial remand granted by the ACB Court in Vijayawada be cancelled.
With the judgment kept in reserve, the fate of Mr. Naidu, who is accused of playing a key role in the case and is currently lodged in the Rajahmundry Central Prison, hangs in the balance.
An intense courtroom battle took place through the day as former Solicitor General of India Harish Salve mounted a scathing attack on the Government of Andhra Pradesh basically on the ground that no permission was granted by the State Governor under Section 17(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to investigate Mr. Naidu’s alleged complicity in the scam.
Mr. Salve said the State’s liability was limited. He pointed out that the project had been duly valued. He further said that it was put in place, and the Centres of Excellence (CoE) and Technical Skill Development Institutes (TSDI) were up and running as well. There was also an undertaking to complete the project, and the liabilities were clearly laid down, and it was never said that the services (training) were not rendered, Mr. Salve argued.
The issue being dealt with pertained to subcontractor deliverables, and the petitioner (Mr. Naidu) was in no way concerned with it. If the Central agency (Central Institute of Tool Design), which had valued the project, said the cost was fair, it should also be brought into the case, Mr. Salve contended.
Mr. Salve said that Mr. Naidu was cooperative, and hence there was no glaring need to take him into custody. His arguments were supplemented by senior advocate Siddharth Luthra.
Former Attorney General for India Mukul Rohatgi, senior advocate Ranjit Kumar and Additional Advocate General P. Sudhakar Reddy appeared for the State/CID.
One of their main arguments was that Mr. Naidu had proceeded with the partnership that involved Siemens and some other private companies in spite of being aware of the fact that the project cost was inflated.
They insisted that the complaint (against Mr. Naidu) had to be examined in its entirety on the basis of the allegation, and the High Court was under no obligation to look into its correctness.
The relevant G.O.s and the agreement were not consistent with each other, and none of the documents had any dates. Besides, a forensic audit revealed that DesignTech had diverted funds of more than ₹200 crore. An Income Tax notice issued to Mr. Naidu had a mention of similar doubtful transactions from different projects, and it showed the modus operandi, it was argued on behalf of the State / CID.
Meanwhile, the High Court also adjourned Mr. Naidu’s bail plea in the Inner Ring Road (IRR) case, which was about changes made for it in the Amaravati Master Plan allegedly against norms, to September 21.
