The Supreme Court on Monday told former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s lawyer that Section 17A, which mandates prior sanction for investigation, under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be interpreted to defeat the very objective of the statute.
Responding to the oral observation by a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, senior advocate Harish Salve, for Mr. Naidu, responded that Section 17A was a protection tailored for public servants against regime revenge.
Mr. Salve and senior advocate Siddharth Luthra argued that no sanction was received under Section 17A before suddenly initiating prosecution against Mr. Naidu by registering an FIR, 21 months ago, in the skill development scam case.
The counsel said the fundamental right of the TDP leader was violated. His arrest was illegal. Mr. Salve quoted a recent judgment of the apex court which said a remand order could be set aside if the arrest was illegally made.
“Both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non est as both have been initiated and investigation has continued till date without the mandatory approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was introduced in July 2018,” Mr. Salve argued the politician’s plea to quash the FIR.
He said the “very registration of the FIR was barred by Section 17A as it related to official acts of public servants… The FIR being barred under Section 17A, the arrest, remand and consequent actions must fall”.
The provision came into force on July 26, 2018. The enquiry into the case was initiated in 2021 on a complaint dated September 7, 2021 and FIR was registered in December 2021.
“This FIR would therefore clearly attract the provision,” Mr. Luthra said.
The petition filed by Mr. Naidu alleged an orchestrated campaign of regime revenge to derail the largest Opposition in the State.
“The petitioner, who is presently the Leader of Opposition, the national president of the [Telugu Desam] Party and a former Chief Minister, was illegally put into custody in an FIR barred by law,” the petition filed by advocate Guntur Pramod Kumar said.
Mr. Salve argued that the case related to policy decisions approved by the State Cabinet and cannot be the subject of criminal proceedings. The ₹360-crore allotment for the skill development project was included in the 2015-16 Budget, it was contended.
The High Court had declined to quash the criminal cases filed against Mr. Naidu. It had also refused to set aside the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) court’s order to remand him.
The High Court, in its September 22 order, said the probe agency had initiated criminal action against Mr. Naidu after conducting extensive examination of witnesses and collection of documentary evidence following the registration of the crime in 2021. The investigation was at its final stage, the High Court had said.
The case involves alleged misappropriation made in the process of establishment of skill development institutions by Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation in collaboration with private companies.
The CID remand report alleged that Mr. Naidu “indulged in a criminal conspiracy with the intention of fraudulent misappropriation or otherwise conversion of government funds for his own use, disposal of property which was under the control of a public servant, besides engaging in cheating, forging documents and destroying evidence”.
