In a pivotal development that has captured the nation’s attention, the Supreme Court, under the purview of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, has denied interim bail to N Chandrababu Naidu, the former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the leader of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), in relation to the Skill Development Corporation scam case. The apex court has decided to reserve its verdict on Naidu’s plea, which seeks to challenge the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that refused to quash the FIR against him.
The backdrop of Naidu’s arrest on September 9 stems from allegations that he misappropriated funds from the Skill Development Corporation during his tenure as Chief Minister in 2015. This purported mismanagement has allegedly led to a loss of a staggering ₹371 crore to the state exchequer. Since his arrest, Naidu has been held under judicial remand in the Rajamahendravaram central prison.
Representing Naidu, Senior Advocate Harish Salve made a fervent plea for interim bail, emphasizing,
“I have a request for interim bail. Your Lordships may consider releasing him. If you eventually rule against him, he can go back.”
Salve further elaborated on the government’s previous inquiry into the matter, stating,
“In the 2015-16 inquiry, the government’s lament was that nothing came of it. Now, in 2021, they are desperately grasping at straws.”
He staunchly reaffirmed his belief that Naidu was falsely implicated in the case.
Echoing Salve’s sentiments, another Senior Advocate, Sidharth Luthra, also championed the cause for interim bail for the former chief minister. However, their collective pleas were met with resistance from Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, who was representing the Andhra Pradesh government. Kumar pointed out that Naidu’s bail application was already under consideration by the trial court.
A central point of contention in these discussions was the introduction of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in July 2018. This provision necessitates obtaining prior approval from a competent authority before initiating an investigation against a public servant. Naidu’s defense hinges on this provision, asserting that the FIR against him was lodged without securing the required prior approval, thereby making his arrest unlawful.
The courtroom debate was rife with discussions on the applicability of Section 17A, especially since the alleged offences were committed in 2016. A team of lawyers, including Salve, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Luthra, argued fervently for the provision’s applicability, emphasizing that the inquiry was initiated post the 2018 amendment. In contrast, the State, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, contended that Section 17A would not apply retrospectively, given that the alleged offences and the probe were initiated before the 2018 amendment.
Adding another layer to this legal saga, the Supreme Court has also slated a hearing for Naidu’s separate plea seeking anticipatory bail in the FiberNet case. This case revolves around alleged tender manipulations in the AP FiberNet Project, which reportedly led to significant financial losses to the state exchequer.
With the legal proceedings gaining momentum, the nation keenly awaits the Supreme Court’s impending verdict, which promises to have profound political and legal implications.
