In a pivotal decision today, the Supreme Court has deferred the judgment on former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s plea to quash a First Information Report (FIR) in the skill development scam case. The disagreement between justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi centers on the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, leading to a referral to a larger bench for resolution.
Justice Bose asserted that obtaining sanction under Section 17A was imperative, emphasizing its necessity after the provision’s operationalization. He opined that any inquiry or investigation against a public servant under the PC Act would be illegal without prior approval. Although Naidu couldn’t be prosecuted under certain sections due to lack of approval, the state could seek approval subsequently. Justice Bose maintained that the trial court had jurisdiction and refused to quash the remand order, allowing Naidu’s appeal partially.
On the contrary, Justice Trivedi opposed her colleague’s stance on Section 17A, arguing against retrospective application. She contended that the provision only applied to newly-inserted offenses post the 2018 amendments. Stressing the substantive nature of prior sanction, she warned against retroactive interpretation, stating it could render prior proceedings futile. Justice Trivedi underlined the legislative intent and affirmed the protection of honest public servants, cautioning against benefitting dishonest individuals.
The justices’ conflicting interpretations prompted the referral of the matter to a larger bench. Justice Bose stated, “As we have taken different opinions on the interpretation of this section, as also applicability on the appellant, we refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions.”
Naidu’s legal team, led by senior advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra, argued that Section 17A sanction was requisite before naming Naidu in the case. The state, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, countered that since the offense predates the provision’s insertion, prior sanction wasn’t applicable.
The Supreme Court’s decision, reserved since October 17, comes after Naidu’s arrest in connection with an alleged Rs 371 crore embezzlement during his tenure. The ongoing legal battles also involve Naidu’s plea for anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case. The top court’s complex rulings and Naidu’s legal challenges add layers to the unfolding legal saga, underscoring the intricacies of corruption allegations and legal interpretations.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab 
