The Supreme Court on Tuesday directed Andhra Pradesh government to file a compilation of all documents and materials that were there before the State High Court while hearing former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu’s plea for the quashing of FIR alleging graft in the Skill Development project.

Posting the matter for hearing on Monday – October 9, a bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi in its order said “the State of Andhra Pradesh which is caveator, shall file a compilation of document that were before the High court” while hearing Chandrababu Naidu’s plea for the quashing of the FIR.

Advertisement

The bench refused to interfere with the ACB court hearing scheduled for tomorrow – October 4 – relating bail plea by Naidu and custody plea by the State police. The court also did not grant any relief requested by Naidu’s lawyers.

Issuing notice to Andhra Pradesh government on Chandrababu Naidu’s plea for the quashing of FIR, the bench did not give any relief to the former Chief Minister.

As senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Chandrababu Naidu, said that they too want to file some documents, the bench said that both the sides could exchange the document for filing a common compilation, that makes the hearing easier.

The bone of contention by the senior lawyers – Harush Salve, Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Chandrababu Naidu – was that no FIR could have been registered against Naidu without the sanction of the State Governor as the offence alleged against him is of the period when he was the Chief Minister and relates to decisions he took in discharge of his official duties/functions.

Both the sides cited material to suggest that Chandrababu Naidu was entitled/not entitled to the shield of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), providing for the prior sanction of the Governor before launching an inquiry or investigation against him in the alleged Skill Development Scam.

Both Salve and Singhvi relied upon the Section 17A of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988, stating that no inquiry or investigation against a public servant (Chief Minister in the instant case), in respect of an alleged offence relatable to a decision taken by public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the competent authority.

Describing the registration of FIR, investigation and the arrest of Chandrababu Naidu as “regime revenge”, “political act”, “illegal” and “ruth and Ranch”, senior advocate Harish Salve said that former Chief Minister too had a right even as an accused and could not be investigated without prior sanction by Governor under Section 17A of the PC Act and it is a matter of procedure that had to be followed.

As Salve referred to Section 17A of the PC Act, Justice Trivedi said that Section 17A was inserted in July 2018 – obviously suggesting how the shield of Section 17A was available to Chandra babu Naidu.

Salve said that the Section 17A of the PC Act comes into play not from the date an alleged offence was committed but from the date “enquiry, inquiry or investigation” commences and in the instant case the FIR was registered on December 9, 2021.

Salve argued that the alleged offence related the period when Chandrababu Naidu was Chief Minister from 2014-2019 but the FIR in the case was registered in December 2021 – the date of enquiry, inquiry or investigation under the Act.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi too advanced arguments to contend that Chandrababu Naidu was w entitled to protection of Section 17A of the PC Act.

However, both Justice Bose and Justice Trivedi felt that the prior sanction by the competent authority under Section 17A was only in respect of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and not for the offences registered under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“Offences under the IPC are not excluded under the Section 17A of the PC Act,” Justice Bose said.

Justice Bose said: “At this stage, we are introspecting the pure position of law advanced by you. We are introspecting (the position of law) with you in mind.”

Justice Trivedi said that the question is whether it (Section 17A) is applicable to offences under the Indian Penal Code or just the PC Act.

Singhvi said that “This will be nullifying the objective of the parliament; The objective of the amendment is to give a filter of protection.” By inserting Section 17A of the PC Act. Salve said that there will be a collapse of the PC Act. The objective of the amendment is to give a filter of protection.

Justice Trivedi said, “We are not on merits.” Justice Bose said, We are not interested in this question of official discharge.

Singhvi said that “Ultimately, this is a matter which requires consideration. This is not a frivolous argument. If a benefit is given to the accused by the law, then it must be interpreted in a way to ensure that it is given.”

Appearing for Andhra Pradesh government, Mukul Rohatgi said that the Section 17A does not come into play as the entire thing started way back in 2017 with the lodging of a complaint to the CBI.

Rohatgi said that six Skill development centres were to be developed to impart technical training to youth. He said 90 per cent of the project cost was to be met by the private developer and 10 per cent by the state government and later (State government) released hundreds of crores of rupees. He said that officials for the Skill Development Corporation were handpicked.

AS Luthra contested this, Rohatgi said that they have filed these documents in the High Court, prompting the bench to ask Andhra Pradesh government to file before it all the material that was before the High Court in the hearing of quashing of FIR proceedings.

Mukul Rohatgi said: “I will show how this petition should be rejected right away. Section 17A does not arise in this case. 17A came in July 2018. Though the FIR is of 2021, the inquiry arose prior to the insertion of 17A. Inquiry started even before this government came in. CBI seized it in 2017 and sent it to the State.”

Justice Bose asked, “How do we know the nature of inquiry?”

The Supreme Court is hearing a plea by Chandrababu Naidu seeking the quashing of an FIR registered against him for the Skill Development Scam.