E-Paper
Supreme Court reserves verdict on Chandrababu Naidu plea, declines interim relief
Chandrababu Naidu was arrested on September 9 for allegedly misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim bail to jailed former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu and reserved its verdict on his petition to quash the case registered against him for want of sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act that shields public servants against prosecution for actions or decisions taken during the official discharge of duty.
“We have heard the main matter. We will deliver the judgment,” said a bench of justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi after senior advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the 73-year-old Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief, reiterated their request for interim bail.
Naidu was arrested on September 9 for allegedly misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation, which resulted in a purported loss of over ₹300 crore to the state exchequer.
The TDP chief has also filed an anticipatory bail petition in a FiberNet case in which he was summoned by the state police on October 16. The state had assured the court last week that it would not arrest him till Tuesday when the matter was due to be next heard. The court posted this matter for hearing on Friday on the understanding that he won’t be arrested.
“This man has been in custody for nearly 40 days. Allow him interim bail. If the court does not accept his plea in the main matter, he may go back,” said Harish Salve. In the main petition, Naidu argued that his arrest was illegal as the crime investigation department (CID) of the state police did not obtain prior approval from the competent authority under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act that bars agencies from investigating public servants on corruption charges without the government’s approval.
The state government represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar told the court that the accused argued the plea of Section 17A and cannot seek interim bail till that issue is decided. The court granted him time till Friday to file his written arguments opposing Naidu’s petition.
Luthra said, “We are arguing for interim bail irrespective of our defence under Section 17A. If remand goes, his release will follow. But this can never close our right for seeking interim bail.” However, the bench was not inclined to pass any interim order.
The court heard arguments by Naidu’s counsel who said that the investigating agency cannot conduct an inquiry against an accused public servant without approval as doing this will turn the protection under Section 17A on its head. Salve said that past judgments of the Supreme Court clearly hold that no case can proceed against a public servant without Section 17A approval.
Naidu in his petition alleged political vendetta by the present political regime in Andhra Pradesh claiming that case after case was being lodged against him to adversely impact his party’s performance ahead of the assembly polls in the state early next year.
The allegation against Naidu relates to the alleged diversion of government funds intended for a skill development project by forming shell companies through fraudulent invoices that did not correspond to the actual delivery of services.
Naidu moved the Supreme Court on September 23 after the Andhra Pradesh high court refused to set aside the first information report (FIR) registered against him and ruled that Section 17A protection would not be applicable as the actions in question were unconnected with his official duties while he held office as chief minister in the state.
Naidu questioned the delay of 21 months for naming him in the FIR. In his petition, he alleged the Andhra Pradesh CID was acting at the behest of the ruling party to hurt TDP’s chances in the state election due early next year and called it a “clear example of regime revenge”.
