On Friday, the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the request made by former State Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to dismiss the First Information Report (FIR) filed against him in relation to the Andhra Pradesh skill development program scam.

Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy noted that the actions attributed to Naidu couldn't be considered as done in good faith and as part of his official responsibilities as the Chief Minister. Consequently, the Court ruled that there was no requirement for prior approval from the appropriate authority to conduct an investigation into the alleged offenses.

During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, representing Naidu, pointed out to the Court that the First Information Report (FIR) had been filed on December 19, 2021, while Naidu was named as an accused much later, on September 7, 2023.
Salve also argued that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act had not been adhered to since the required permission from the competent authority, as outlined in the provision, had not been obtained. He asserted that Naidu's inclusion in the case appeared to be a retaliatory investigation by the current regime, and the state's machinery was being manipulated to apply the weight of criminal law for such purposes. Furthermore, Salve contended that even if all the allegations were taken at face value, there was no clear and initial evidence of wrongdoing by Naidu. 

Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who was also representing Naidu, reinforced Salve's arguments and emphasized that under Section 17A, no investigation should be initiated against a public servant for actions carried out as part of their official duties without obtaining prior approval.

However, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar, representing the State Criminal Investigation Department (CID), argued that the proceedings should not be terminated because the investigation was still in its early stages.
Rohatgi contended that Section 17A should not serve as a hindrance in this case because Naidu, as the head of the executive government, was allegedly engaged in a premeditated and intentional scam that involved the misappropriation of ₹370 crores in public funds.

He also argued that there was no requirement for prior sanction under Section 17A for the investigation of offenses that occurred before July 26, 2018, which is the date when this provision was introduced into the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.

Additional Advocate General Ponnavolu Sudhakar Reddy emphasized that the investigation into the alleged crime had begun long before Section 17A was added to the Act. Therefore, he argued that there was no legal obstacle preventing the police from conducting the investigation.

Following its observation that Naidu's actions were not carried out in good faith or as part of his official duties, the Court expressed the opinion that it could not conduct a mini-trial within the scope of a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

“The investigating agency, pursuant to the registration of the crime in the year 2021, examined as many as more than 140 witnesses and collected documents to the tune of more than 4000. Profligacy is such an esoteric subject, where investigation has to be carried with utmost proficiency by the professionals.” The court asserted.

Hence, since the investigation was on the fulcrum of attaining finality, the Court determined that no interference was required. Accordingly, it dismissed Naidu's plea as devoid of merits.

Case: Nara Chandrababu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Criminal Petition NO.6942 OF 2023.