In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed a plea filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, seeking the quashing of the FIR registered against him in the Andhra Pradesh skill development programme scam case. A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi upheld the remand order passed by the Magistrate and the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to reject the quashing plea.

The case revolves around allegations that Naidu was involved in a scheme diverting government funds intended for a skill development project into various shell companies through fraudulent invoices. Naidu, a leader of the Telegu Desam Party (TDP), was arrested and later remanded to judicial custody on September 10, 2023.

A noteworthy aspect of the Supreme Court's decision is the differing interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the two justices. Justice Aniruddha Bose emphasized the necessity of obtaining prior sanction from the government under Section 17A, even for acts preceding its insertion in 2018. He noted that failure to secure such approval would render any subsequent action illegal but considered it a curable defect, not invalidating the remand order.

On the other hand, Justice Bela M Trivedi took a different stance, asserting that Section 17A, inserted in 2018, should apply prospectively and not retrospectively. She argued that the section's objective is to protect honest public servants from harassment, not to benefit dishonest ones. Justice Trivedi expressed concerns about a liberal interpretation of the provision, stating that the absence of approval should not be grounds for quashing the FIR, particularly when the accused faces charges under other PC Act offences.

In light of this difference in opinion, the matter has been referred to a larger bench for a comprehensive interpretation of Section 17A. This legal provision has become a focal point in the case, as it dictates the mandatory requirement for government sanction to prosecute a public servant for acts performed in the discharge of official functions or duties.

A number of senior lawyers appeared for Naidu in court, including Senior Advocates Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Harish Salve, and Sidharth Luthra. On the opposing side, Senior Advocates Ranjit Kumar and Mukul Rohatgi appeared for the Andhra Pradesh government.

Meanwhile, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on September 22, dismissed Naidu's quashing plea, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. The High Court had granted interim bail to Naidu on medical grounds on October 31, followed by regular bail on November 20. The State government's appeal against the bail decision is still pending before the apex court.

Case: Nara Chandrababu Naidu vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr,

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.____OF 2024 (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.12289 of 2023).

Click to Read/Download Judgment.