Skill Development Scam: SC to Hear Plea Challenging Naidu’s Bail on May 7

The Supreme Court is set to hear a plea filed by the Andhra Pradesh government challenging a high court decision granting regular bail to TDP chief N Chandrababu Naidu in the skill development corporation scam case.

The Bench

The petition was mentioned before a bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal, who noted that the state’s counsel stated they had filed an interlocutory application (IA) in the matter. However, the bench observed that the said application does not appear to be part of the record.

“In view of the above, the Registry is directed to do the needful. List the IA and the special leave petition on May 7, 2024,” the bench stated.

The Andhra Pradesh Government

The state government has moved the apex court to challenge the November 20 order of the Andhra Pradesh High Court granting regular bail to Naidu. On November 28, the Supreme Court had sought a response from Naidu on the state’s plea against the high court order.

The top court had also eased the bail conditions of the 73-year-old former chief minister, permitting him to participate in public rallies and meetings until December 8, the next date of hearing. However, other bail conditions, including refraining from making public statements or speaking to media about the case, remained in force.

Bail

The high court had converted Naidu’s four-week interim medical bail, granted on October 31, 2023, into absolute bail on November 20 and ordered his release, considering factors such as his age, age-related ailments, non-flight risk, and other reasons.

Naidu was arrested on September 9 for allegedly misappropriating funds from the Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation during his tenure as chief minister in 2015, purportedly causing a loss of over Rs 300 crore to the state exchequer. Naidu has denied the allegations.

During the February 26 hearing in the apex court, the Andhra Pradesh government had urged the top court to revoke Naidu’s bail, alleging that his family members had made statements to “intimidate” public servants to obstruct the probe.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International, Opinion Analysis