The Supreme Court has delivered a split verdict on former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu’s plea challenging High Court order refusing to quash the FIR registered against him in the Skill Development Corporation scam case.
The SC bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, differed on the applicability of Prevention of Corruption Act Section 17A, which deals with prior approval for conducting probe.
The Act’s Section 17A, which was introduced on July 26, 2018 as part of an amendment, stipulates a mandatory requirement for a police officer to seek prior approval from the competent authority to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant.
Justice Bose held that the authorities should have taken prior approval to hold the investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. “However, I refuse to quash the remand order. The lack of approval will not make the remand order non-est,” Justice Bose said, while granting liberty to the state to seek such approval.
Justice Trivedi said section 17A will not apply retrospectively and upheld the high court order refusing to quash the FIR. “The impugned order of remand and impugned judgement of the high court does not suffer from any illegality,” Justice Trivedi said while dismissing Naidu’s appeal.
Following divergent opinions, the bench said the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
The Telugu Desam Party chief was arrested on September 9, 2023, for allegedly misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation when he was the CM in 2015, causing a purported loss of Rs 371 crore to the state exchequer. Naidu has denied the allegations.
The high court refused to dismiss his plea for quashing the FIR, following which he moved the apex court to challenge the September 22 order. On October 17, a Supreme Court bench had reserved its verdict on the plea.
During the earlier hearing, the state counsel urged the court to dismiss Naidu’s petition to quash the FIR, arguing that the Prevention of Corruption Act Section 17A came into force in July 2018, while the CBI began probing the case in 2017.
Naidu’s lawyers had argued that all allegations in the FIR pertain to decisions, instructions or recommendations made by Naidu when he was the chief minister and Section 17A was applicable in the case as the inquiry started in December 2021.
The TDP chief argued that the FIR was lodged without obtaining the prior approval of the competent authority in the scam case, and, therefore, his arrest was illegal.
However, the high court rejected his plea, saying criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage and quashing an FIR should be an exception rather than the rule.
