SC gives split verdict on Chandrababu Naidu’s plea against HC order

The Supreme Court delivered a divided verdict on the plea of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu seeking directions to quash the criminal proceedings against him in the Skill Development Corporation (SDC) scam case.

A two-judge bench headed by Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi dissented from each other’s opinion in its judgment today and hence agreed to refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India.

In his order, Justice Bose allowed Naidu’s appeal, while Justice Trivedi dismissed his appeal.

Justice Bose said, “Under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, there was a requirement to take sanction by the police which was not taken and added that the authority can now enforce the sanction. However, he said the proceedings under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) will continue.”

Meanwhile, Justice Trivedi said no approval was required.

“The purpose of the Act is to fight corruption and 17A is to protect honest public servants from harassment and its purpose cannot be to give advantage to dishonest public servants and applying it retrospectively will defeat the purpose of the PC Act. Absence of approval will never be a ground for quashing the FIR, especially when he (Naidu) has also been charged under other PC Act offenses and since this has been done during his official capacity, it is not under 17A. Will come and this will reduce the preliminary investigation. Forum,” Justice Trivedi said in his judgment.

He also said that there was no error in the remand order and thus there is no infirmity in the AP HC order and hence his (Naidu’s) appeal is dismissed.

Justice Bose said that since there were different views on Section 17A, he delivered a scattered judgment and referred the matter to the CJI for appropriate directions.

Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief Naidu had moved the apex court challenging the AP State High Court order of September 22, 2023 refusing to quash the FIR against him in the case. However, the AP state HC had granted him regular bail in the case on November 20 last year.

The apex court had reserved its verdict on October 17 last year after hearing the arguments and arguments of Naidu, AP government and other parties in the case.

The state Criminal Investigation Department (CID) had arrested Naidu on September 9 last year, when he was the state CM in 2015, in a fraud case involving misuse of funds from the SDC and the loss he allegedly caused. State treasury Rs 300 crore.

The TDP chief had argued before the apex court that the FIR (First Information Report) against him in the case was lodged without obtaining prior approval of the competent authority and hence, his arrest was illegal and unreasonable and hence it needed to be quashed. . ,

Dismissing his plea, the AP HC had said that criminal proceedings should not be stopped at the initial stage and quashing of FIR should be an exception rather than the rule.

After this, Naidu approached the Supreme Court challenging it and demanded its cancellation.

The AP government had also moved the top court against the state high court’s order granting regular bail to Naidu in the case. However, it failed to get any relief from the SC.

It is noteworthy that Naidu has already got regular bail from the apex court till further orders in the SDC scam.

The AP government in the top court said the alleged offense against Naidu pertains to a project involving Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation (APSSDC), Siemens Industry Software (India) Pvt Ltd. Ltd. and DesignTech India Pvt. Ltd. for setting up Siemens Centers of Excellence and Skill Development in six clusters in Andhra Pradesh.

Naidu has been accused of hastily incorporating the APSSDC by dismissing objections that it required state cabinet approval. He declared himself innocent in the case.

The current AP government alleges that Naidu made his choice in some appointments in the APSSDC to allegedly “facilitate the scam”.

The state government alleges that Naidu also entered into a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with Siemens and Designtech without any tender process.

“They expedited the release of funds for the project even before any work was completed, even ignoring the objections of senior officials like the finance secretary,” the state government alleged in the top court.