Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Consideration Of Chandrababu Naidu's Plea For Quashing Of FIR In Skill Development Scam Case

The Supreme Court has refused to grant an urgent hearing of a Special Leave Petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu challenging the High Court's decision, which had rejected Naidu's request for the quashing of the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him in the Andhra Pradesh skill development program scam case.

The Bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra, asked Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra to bring up the Special Leave Petition (SLP) for mentioning tomorrow. The Chief Justice remarked, "Come tomorrow." The Bench declined to allow the mentioning since the SLP had not been included in the Mentioning List.

The Supreme Court has established a procedure for urgent listing, wherein Advocates-on-Record must send an email in advance, on the preceding day, requesting urgent listing.

The SLP submits that Naidu was suddenly named in the FIR registered over twenty-one months ago, arrested in an illegal manner and deprived of his liberty motivated only by political reasons. It has also been submitted in the SLP that both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non est as both have been initiated and investigation continue till date without a mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

By the impugned order, the Andhra Pradesh High Court had held that the alleged actions by Naidu could not be considered as being carried out in good faith or in the execution of his official duties as Chief Minister. The Court stated, “Section 17A of the PC Act cannot be made applicable in those cases where the act of the public servant that amounts to an offence appears on the face of it lacking in good faith. Issuing public building license and no objection certificates cannot be said to be acts done in good faith.” As a result, the Court ruled that prior approval from the competent authority was not required for the investigation into the alleged offences.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra had appeared for Naidu before the High Court and had submitted that the FIR was registered on December 19, 2021, while Naidu was named as an accused on September 7, 2023. They argued that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act had not been followed, as the required permission from the competent authority had not been obtained.

On the opposing side, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi and Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, representing the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), argued that the proceedings should not be dismissed as the investigation was in its early stages. Rohatgi contended that Section 17A did not apply because Naidu, as the head of the executive government, was allegedly involved in a deliberate scam that misappropriated Rs.370 crores of public funds. He also stated that prior approval under Section 17A was not required for investigations before July 26, 2018, when the provision was added to the PC Act.

However, the High Court Court found that Naidu's actions could not be considered to have been carried out in good faith or in the performance of his official duties.

The Court said that “this Court is of the opinion that in respect of the disputed questions of fact, a mini trial cannot be conducted by this Court in a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC. The investigating agency, pursuant to the registration of the crime in the year 2021, examined as many as more than 140 witnesses and collected documents to the tune of more than 4000. Profligacy is such an esoteric subject, where investigation has to be carried with utmost proficiency by the professionals. At this stage, where the investigation is on fulcrum of attaining finalty, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings.”