The top court is hearing a plea by former Andhra Pradesh chief minister Chandrababu Naidu, seeking the quashing of the FIR against him.
Chandrababu Naidu was recently awarded regular bail. (Commons)
Top lawyers battled in the Supreme Court over the “quash petition” of TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu in the skill development scam for which he is under arrest, with his defence contending that, under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, a probe could not be launched against a former/serving chief minister for the questionable acts done by them without the sanction of the state Governor.
Arguing before a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi on Monday, 9 October, Naidu’s defence team said no such sanction had been sought (and obtained), and hence the case against him should be quashed.
However, the court, at one point, noted that Section 17A could not be viewed in isolation, and its interpretation has to be “in conformity with the objectives of the statute to curb and prevent corruption”.
Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, mandates prior sanction of the competent authority before holding an “enquiry or inquiry or investigation” against a public servant for their alleged wrong-doings committed when they were holding public office.
The comment from the Bench came as senior advocate Harish Salve emphasised that the requirements under Section 17A had to be satisfied before any investigation against former chief minister Naidu was initiated.
“While interpreting 17A, we have to see that the objective of the law (PC Act) that was enacted to prevent corruption are met,” Justice Trivedi told Salve in the course of his argument, spread over two-and-a-half hours.
“There are many contours of the 17A, and approval is required for inquiry, enquiry, and investigation, and for prosecution,” she added.
Salve appeared for Chandrababu Naidu.
At the outset of the hearing, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, placed before the Bench the documents relating to the 2017 complaint to the CBI against Naidu, relating to alleged corruption in an Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) project.
The project, involving setting up of six centres across the state to impart technical skills to youth, was started when Chandrababu Naidu was chief minister from 2014 to 2019.
Rohatgi told the Bench that these documents were not only before the high court, which heard Naidu’s plea for the quashing of the FIR lodged against him in the case, but also before the remand court as well.
However, Justice Bose observed, “There was no discussion (in the high court judgement). The high court just referrers to it. You too did not argue it.”
Salve said that these papers were filed a day after the conclusion of argument and judgement being reserved.
The 2017 complaint, which was sent to the CBI for investigation into the skill development scam, has been cited by the Andhra Pradesh government to indicate that it did not require prior section under Section 17A of PC Act to investigate Naidu as the entire case is rooted in that complaint.
The Andhra Pradesh government subsequently contended that Section 17A, which became of a part of the PC Act in July 2021, cannot be enforced retrospectively.
Contesting the position of Andhra Pradesh government, Salve told the Bench that the 2017 complaint has no nexus with the registration of the 2021 FIR against Naidu as it is based on a new complaint and that the 2017 complaint was abandoned.
Salve told the Bench that the 2017 complaint was sent to CBI, which, in turn, sent it to the Andhra Pradesh police, and then it was abandoned and no action was taken.
Naidu was still chief minister in 2017.
Salve took the court through different materials, communications from the office of Additional Director General (CID) to drive home the point that the registration of the FIR against Naidu is based on a new complaint.
Contesting the stand of the Andhra Pradesh government, Salve said that application of Section 17A is retrospective and referred to the position taken by certain high courts, stating that prior sanction position is from the date of offence and not the registration of FIR.
“The inquiry, enquiry, and investigation cannot be done without crossing the Section 17A. For every public servant (in a case) you require approval under Section 17A and if that is not there, then the investigation goes,” Salve told the Bench, emphasising on the prerequisite compliance of Section 17A.
The top court is hearing a plea by Chandrababu Naidu, seeking the quashing of the FIR against him rooted in the APSSDC scam. He has challenged the state high court’s judgement rejecting his plea for the quashing of the FIR.
Naidu is currently in judicial custody. Salve will continue his argument tomorrow, 10 October. Rohatgi will continue to argue for the Andhra Pradesh government.
Jun 26, 2024
Jun 26, 2024
Jun 26, 2024
Jun 26, 2024
Jun 26, 2024
Jun 26, 2024
