Supreme Court judge Justice S.V.N. Bhatti on Wednesday recused himself from hearing a petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu challenging an Andhra Pradesh High Court verdict, which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against him in connection with a multi-crore skill development scam.
As soon as the matter came up for hearing before the Bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti (who hails from Andhra Pradesh), Justice Khanna told Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for Naidu, that Justice Bhatti had some reservations about hearing the matter. The counsel urged the Apex Court to list the matter as early as possible.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, also representing Naidu, sought permission to mention the matter before the Chief Justice of India.
Justice Khanna allowed Naidu’s lawyers to mention the case before the CJI for an early listing and recorded in the order that subject to the orders of the Chief Justice, the present special leave petition be placed before a Bench of which Justice Bhatti was not a member.
The matter would now be heard on October 3 by a new Bench.
Earlier on September 25, the Apex Court had refused to grant an out-of-turn mentioning to Naidu’s petition.
Noting that the plea was not there in the mentioning list today, the Bench led by CJI D.Y. Chandrachud directed Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra to mention the same tomorrow.
Luthra argued that the opposition was being curbed in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Naidu had moved the Apex Court on September 23 against the Andhra Pradesh High Court order, which refused to quash the first information report (FIR) registered against him in the skill development programme scam case.
Filed through Advocate Guntur Pramod Kumar, the petition contended that the FIR was registered on December 19, 2021, whereas Naidu was arrayed as an accused on September 7, 2023.
The High Court held that there was no need for prior approval from the competent authority for investigation into the alleged offences.
The single-judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed that the acts alleged against Naidu could not be said to be in good faith and in discharge of his official duties as Chief Minister.
Senior Advocate Harish Salve contended that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act was not complied with, as no permission was obtained from the competent authority.
Advocate Salve also argued that Naidu’s implication was nothing, but a ‘regime revenge investigation’ and that the instrumentalities of the State were being weaponised for using the force of criminal law.
The lawyer added that even if all the accusations were to be believed, there was no prima facie case against Naidu.
Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), said that quashing the application was wrong.
Rohatgi argued that Section 17A was not a bar as Naidu, being the head of the executive government, was involved in a calculated and deliberate scam which misappropriated ₹370 crore of public money.
Further, he asserted that there was no need for prior sanction under Section 17A for investigation of offences prior to July 26, 2018, the date on which the the provision was inserted into PC Act.
The investigation against Naidu centres around a scheme that allegedly diverted government funds intended for a skill development project into various shell companies through fraudulent invoices, which did not correspond with the delivery of services.
He was arrested and later remanded to judicial custody in the matter on September 10.