The Supreme Court on Tuesday adjourned the petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu seeking quashing of FIR registered in connection with the skill development scam case for hearing on October 9.
The Bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M. Trivedi further issued notice on the petition and directed the State of Andhra Pradesh to produce the entire compilation of documents filed before the High Court.
The hearing, which lasted for around 50 minutes, witnessed the Apex Court mulling over the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, when the offence was committed prior to the 2018 amendment, which inserted 17A.
The Bench further deliberated on whether 17A was applicable when the FIR mentioned not only the offences under the PC Act, but also the offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The counsels appearing for Naidu argued that 17A was applicable when the inquiry started after the 2018 amendment, even if the offences were prior to it.
However, the counsel appearing for the State said the inquiry started before 2018.
The orders were passed on a special leave petition filed by Naidu, challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court order of August, which refused to quash a first information report (FIR) arraigning the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader as one of the accused in the case.
The crime investigation department of Andhra Pradesh Police had arrested Naidu in connection with this case on September 9 and he has remained in custody since.
Appearing for Naidu, Senior Advocate Harish Salve said before the interpretation of Section 17A of PC Act came up, he wanted to clear the air regarding dates in the matter.
He said an inquiry was started on December 9, 2021 based on a letter dated September 7, 2021 to the Director General of Police.
Mentioning the remand record, the Senior Counsel said the whole idea of Section 17A was to prevent this sort of regime revenge.
Salve termed the High Court verdict a pure ‘political act,’ which erred in the manner of interpreting Section 17A. He said the Section was interpreted as not being retrospective. It was purely about the procedure and a permission had to be sought before the inquiry began.
He said there was no reasonable connection with the discharge of official duties and thus, Section 17A had no place in this case. The protection must kick in since it was brought in, he pointed out, mentioning the allegations put forth in the case.
Salve said the allegations were clear, these were the mere decisions taken by the Chief Minister like setting up a corporation etc. He asked whether an inquiry could be conducted in the teeth of Section 17A without the approval of the Governor..
He contended that the High Court wrongly interpreted Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which was related to acts done by a public servant in discharge of official functions, introduced by a 2018 amendment.
As per Salve, Section 17A could not be applied to offences committed before July 2018. It was simply not correct, he added.