SC refused to interfere with the ACB Court hearing on Chandrababu Naidu's bail plea and his custody plea by the CID.
Published Oct 03, 2023 | 6:16 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 03, 2023 | 6:16 PM
Former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 3 October, directed the Andhra Pradesh government to file a compilation of all the documents/material presented before the state high court while hearing TDP chief Nara Chandrababu Naidu’s plea for quashing the FIR in the alleged ₹370 crore Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC) scam.
Posting the matter for hearing on 9 October, a bench comprising Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi said, “The state of Andhra Pradesh which is caveator, shall file a compilation of documents that were before the high court” while hearing Chandrababu Naidu’s plea for the quashing of the FIR.
The bench refused to interfere with the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court hearing on 4 October relating to the bail plea by Naidu and the custody plea by the state Crime Investigation Department (CID). The court also did not grant any relief requested by Naidu’s lawyers.
Issuing a notice to the Andhra Pradesh government on Naidu’s plea for the quashing of the FIR, the bench did not give any relief to the former chief minister.
As senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Naidu, said that they too want to file some documents, the bench said that both sides could exchange the document for filing a common compilation, which could make the hearing easier. Andhra Pradesh Advocate General S Sriram appeared for the state government.
The bone of contention by the senior lawyers — Harish Salve, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Chandrababu Naidu — was that no FIR could be registered against Naidu without the sanction of the state’s Governor.
They said that the alleged offence against him occurred when he was the chief minister and relates to decisions he took in the discharge of his official duties/functions.
Both sides cited material to suggest that Naidu was entitled or not entitled to the shield of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA), 1988, which provides for the prior sanction of the Governor before launching an inquiry or investigation against him in the alleged APSSDC cam.
Both Salve and Singhvi relied upon Section 17A of the PCA, stating that no inquiry or investigation against a public servant (chief minister in the instant case), in respect of an alleged offence relatable to a decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, could be carried out without the approval of the competent authority.
Describing the registration of FIR, investigation and the arrest of Naidu as “regime revenge”, “political act”, “illegal” and “ruth and ranch”, senior advocate Harish Salve said that the former chief minister too had a right even as an accused and could not be investigated without prior sanction by Governor under Section 17A of the PCA and it was a matter of procedure that had to be followed.
As Salve referred to Section 17A of the PCA, Justice Trivedi said that Section 17A was inserted in July 2018 — suggesting how the shield of Section 17A was available to Naidu.
Salve said that Section 17A of the PCA comes into play not from the date an alleged offence was committed but from the date “enquiry, inquiry or investigation” commences and in the instant case the FIR was registered on 9 December, 2021.
Salve argued that the alleged offence transpired when Naidu was the chief minister, from 2014 to 2019, but the FIR in the case was registered in December 2021 — the date of enquiry, inquiry or investigation under the Act.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi also advanced arguments to contend that Naidu was entitled to protection of Section 17A of the PCA.
However, both Justice Bose and Justice Trivedi felt that the prior sanction by the competent authority under Section 17A was only in respect of the offences under the PCA and not for the offences registered under the Indin Penal Code (IPC).
“Offences under the IPC are not excluded under Section 17A of the PC Act,” Justice Bose said.
He added, “At this stage, we are introspecting the pure position of law advanced by you. We are introspecting (the position of law) with you in mind.”
Justice Trivedi said that the question was whether Section 17A is applicable to offences under the Indian Penal Code or just the PC Act.
Singhvi said, “This will be nullifying the objectives of the parliaments in inserting Section 17A of the PC Act.” Salve said that it would be the collapse of the PCA.
Justice Trivedi said, “We are not on merits.” And Justice Bose said, “We are not interested in this question of official discharge.”
Singhvi said: “Ultimately, this is a matter which requires consideration. This is not a frivolous argument. If a benefit is given to the accused by the law, then it must be interpreted in a way to ensure that it is given.”
Appearing for the Andhra Pradesh government, Mukul Rohatgi said that Section 17A did not come into play as the entire thing started way back in 2017 with the filing of a complaint with the CBI.
Rohatgi said that six skill development centres were to be developed to impart technical training to youth.
He said 90 percent of the project cost was to be met by the private developer and 10 percent by the state government and later (the state government) released hundreds of crores of rupees. He also contended that the officials for the APSSDC were handpicked.
As Luthra contested this, Rohatgi said that they had filed these documents in the state high court, prompting the bench to ask the Andhra Pradesh government to file all the materials that were before the high court during the hearing of quashing of FIR proceedings.
Rohatgi said, “I will show how this petition should be rejected right away. Section 17A does not arise in this case. It came in July 2018.”
He added: “Though the FIR is from 2021, the inquiry arose prior to the insertion of Section 17A. CBI was seized of it in 2017 and sent it to the state.”
Justice Bose asked, “How do we know the nature of inquiry?”
Referring to the skill development project, the court was informed that 90 percent of the fund was to come from the developer of the project and 10 percent from the state. However, later the developers’ burden of 90 percent contribution to the project was relaxed.
Earlier, Justice SVN Bhatti had recused from hearing the matter.
Soon after the matter was called for hearing on 27 September, Justice Sanjiv Khanna heading a bench also comprising Justice SVN Bhatti said, “My brother (Justice Bhatti) has some reservations in hearing the matter.”
Justice Khanna said Justice Bhatti — who was recently elevated to the Supreme Court and whose parent high court is the Andhra Pradesh High Court — was recusing from hearing the matter, and that the matter would be taken up next week.
However, Harish Salve and Luthra, both appearing for Naidu asked the bench to pass over the matter, so that they could mention it before Chief Justice Chandrachud for listing before another bench.
After hearing the arguments by the CID’s and Naidu’s counsels on 27 September, the ACB court deferred the date of pronouncing its order to 4 October.
The ACB court had adjourned the hearing of two petitions — one by Naidu seeking bail and the other by Andhra Pradesh CID seeking Naidu’s custody for five days.
The court will complete the hearing of arguments of prosecution and defence counsels on the same day and pass on order on the police custody petition and Naidu’s bail plea. The prosecution argued that Naidu did not cooperate during his two-day police custody that concluded on Sunday.
It also opined that it would pass an order on 4 October, regardless of the arguments.
Naidu was arrested on 9 September, for allegedly misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation, which resulted in a purported loss of ₹371 crore to the state exchequer.
The ACB court originally wanted to hear the bail application on 26 September, but when the CID insisted that its petition also be taken up, the court said it would hear arguments on both petitions on the same day.
The court also asked Naidu’s counsel to file their counter to the CID’s fresh petition for custody.
The ACB court also posted the matter related to PT warrants in Amaravati Inner Ring Road and Fibernet cases to 4 October.
Meanwhile, arguments were completed in the petition related to anticipatory bail filed by Naidu in the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the Inner Ring Road case. The CID declared Naidu’s son Nara Lokesh as accused number 14 (A14) in the case.
The CID is probing the irregularities committed to make changes to the alignment of Amaravati Capital Inner Ring road.
Following that, the Andhra Pradesh High Court denied Lokesh anticipatory bail in the case and the CID served him a notice asking him to appear before it on 4 October.
In its fresh petition, the CID said that Naidu’s custody was needed as it had to elicit information from him on the involvement of others in the scam and the manner in which the conspiracy was scripted and implemented.
The CID said that as Naidu, his family members, and the TDP were the suspected end-beneficiaries of the proceeds of the crime, he needed to be further interrogated.
It needs to be ascertained whether the proceeds of the crime are parked with Vikas Kanvilkar who is an accused in the case, the CID added.
The CID said that the nature of the offence being a financial misdemeanour by public officials with a deep-rooted conspiracy it is necessary for the investigation agency to interrogate Naidu to unravel all the elements of the plot which has been hatched to benefit private individuals.
The CID contended that during the course of the investigation, it came to its notice that several crores of rupees were deposited in cash in the bank accounts of the TDP during 2018-20.
