The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on the plea of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister and TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu, challenging the high court’s decision not to quash the FIR against him in the Skill Development Corporation scam case.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi held different views on the interpretation and applicability of section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act in this case.
Section 17A, introduced by an amendment effective from July 26, 2018, mandates a police officer to obtain prior approval from the competent authority before conducting any inquiry or investigation into an alleged offense committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Justice Bose asserted the need for prior approval to conduct a probe into the alleged offenses under the PC Act against Naidu. However, he refused to quash the remand order, stating that the lack of approval does not invalidate the remand order. Justice Bose granted the state the liberty to seek such approval.
In contrast, Justice Trivedi held that section 17A does not apply retrospectively and upheld the high court’s decision not to quash the FIR. She stated, “The impugned order of remand and impugned judgment of the high court does not suffer from any illegality,” while dismissing Naidu’s appeal.
Acknowledging the divergent opinions, the bench decided to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.
Naidu was arrested on September 9 of the previous year on charges of misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation during his tenure as chief minister in 2015, allegedly causing a loss of Rs 371 crore to the state exchequer. Naidu has consistently denied these allegations. The Andhra Pradesh High Court had granted him regular bail in the case on November 20 of the same year.
Naidu approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court’s order that dismissed his petition to quash the FIR, with the high court emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be thwarted at the initial stage, and quashing an FIR should be an exception rather than the rule.
