Breaking: CJI's Bench Directs Listing Of Chandrababu Naidu's Plea On October 3 After Justice SVN Bhatti Recuses From Hearing The Case

The Supreme Court today directed that the 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, be listed on Tuesday, October 3, after the Bench before which the matter was listed recused from hearing the case.

Justice Sanjiv Khanna who is sitting on a bench also comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti said when the matter was called that Justice Bhatti has some difficulty in considering the matter.

Senior Advocate Harish Salve along with Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra who appeared on behalf of Naidu, then requested for the matter to be passed over.

Sidharth Luthra then mentioned the matter before the Bench led by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. "The difficulty is that the gentleman is in custody and I have been pressing for interim bail", Luthra said. "He has been picked up illegally, he has been detained. This FIR could not have been registered, this man could not have been arrested", he submitted. "They are adding him in FIR after FIR... Only because the 24 elections are staring them in the face... If this type of regime revenge is permitted where can we go", he asked.

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar who appeared for the State opposed the mentioning, stating that the bail application before the trial court is pending. Luthra submitted that they are not pressing the bail application before the Court below.

Luthra then submitted that the violation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act goes to the root of the matter.

The CJI then said that the matter will be listed before the appropriate Bench on October 3. The Court also heard Ranjit Kumar in brief before ordering that the matter will be listed before another Bench on October 3.

Recently, the Chief Justice-led Bench had refused to grant an urgent hearing of the plea. The SLP states 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 High Court had ruled that prior approval from the competent authority was not required for the investigation into the alleged offences. Naidu had 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.

While the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), argued that the proceedings should not be dismissed as the investigation was in its early stages. It was 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.

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 High 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.”

Cause Title: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v.The State Of Andhra Pradesh And Anr. [SLP(Crl) No. 12289/2023]