The Supreme Court bench delivers split verdict on quashing the FIR against Chandrababu Naidu in the skill development case, Judges Disagree On Applicability Of S.17A PC Act. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela Trivedi disagree and refers the matter to the CJI.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India delivered a split verdict on the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) against former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, Chandrababu Naidu. The case, presided over by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, revolves around the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Justice Aniruddha Bose, in his judgment, opined that prior sanction as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be obtained for any inquiry or investigation to be legal. He stated that Naidu could not be proceeded against for offences under Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the 1988 Act due to the non-procurement of prior approval from the concerned authority. However, he clarified that the State could now apply for and obtain this approval. Justice Bose also maintained that the trial court had jurisdiction to pass the remand order and refused to quash it, asserting,
“A lack of approval would not make the entire remand order non-est.”
In contrast, Justice Bela M Trivedi disagreed with this interpretation. She held that Section 17A could not be applied retrospectively. Her judgment concluded that Section 17A, being substantive in nature, would only apply to new offences under the PC Act post its significant amendments in 2018. She emphasized that the prior sanction requirement under Section 17A should apply only to new offences and not to those existing prior to the 2018 amendment.
Justice Trivedi pointed out the legislative intent behind the provision, stating,
“It cannot be the objective of Section 17A to give any benefit to dishonest public servants. If it is applied retrospectively, it will frustrate many pending enquiries and investigations.”
Given the divergence in opinions, the matter will now be referred to a larger bench. Justice Bose remarked,
“As we have taken different opinions on the interpretation of this section, as also applicability on the appellant, we refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.”
The arguments in the case were centered around whether the police could make Naidu an accused without obtaining sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Naidu’s lawyers, senior advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra, argued for the necessity of this sanction, while the State, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, contended that the mandate of prior sanction was not applicable as the offence occurred before the insertion of Section 17A in the PC Act through the 2018 amendment.
The Supreme Court had reserved its judgment on October 17 last year and declined to grant interim bail to Naidu, despite appeals from his party, the Telugu Desam Party. However, he was later granted relief by the high court.
In related proceedings, the Supreme Court is also hearing Naidu’s plea against the high court’s decision to decline his request for anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case. The hearing in this case was adjourned pending the decision in the skill development case.
This split verdict highlights the complexities involved in interpreting legal provisions and their applicability, especially in high-profile corruption cases. The referral to a larger bench indicates the need for a more comprehensive judicial examination of the issues at hand.
BACKGROUND
Chandrababu Naidu, a prominent Indian politician and the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, has been embroiled in several allegations of corruption during his political career. The background of these cases is tied to his tenure as the Chief Minister and involves various projects and decisions taken during that time.
Key Aspects of the Corruption Allegations:
FiberNet Scam: One of the notable cases against Naidu is the FiberNet scam. This case revolves around allegations of corruption and irregularities in the implementation of the AP FiberNet project. The project, initiated during Naidu’s tenure, aimed to provide affordable high-speed internet, television, and telephony services to households in Andhra Pradesh. The allegations suggest that there were financial irregularities and procedural lapses in the awarding of contracts and execution of the project.
Skill Development Scam: Another significant case is related to the skill development scam. This involves allegations of misappropriation of funds and irregularities in the skill development initiatives undertaken by the state government. The specifics of the case include accusations of diverting funds meant for skill development programs to other purposes.
Land Allocation Issues: Naidu has also faced accusations regarding land allocation during his tenure. These allegations involve the improper allocation of land to various companies and individuals, raising questions about the transparency and legality of these decisions.
Legal Proceedings: The legal battles surrounding these allegations have seen various twists and turns. Naidu and his party members have consistently denied all allegations, attributing them to political vendetta. The cases have involved investigations by state agencies and have seen multiple court hearings.
Political Context: The allegations against Chandrababu Naidu must be viewed in the broader context of Andhra Pradesh’s political landscape. Naidu’s Telugu Desam Party (TDP) has been a major political force in the state, and the allegations have been a point of contention between TDP and its political rivals.
Public and Media Scrutiny: These cases have attracted significant public and media attention, given Naidu’s stature as a senior politician and former Chief Minister. The outcomes of these legal proceedings are closely watched, as they have implications for Naidu’s political career and the broader political dynamics in Andhra Pradesh.
Case Details:
Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12289 of 2023
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
