Chandrababu Naidu's Case Hearing : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 3]
The Supreme Court will continue hearing today former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu's petition to quash FIR in relation to skill development scam case.This is the third day of hearing before a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose & Bela Trivedi. Report of yesterday's hearing can be read here. The first day's hearing report can be read here.The prime point raised by Naiud's lawyers...
The Supreme Court will continue hearing today former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu's petition to quash FIR in relation to skill development scam case.
This is the third day of hearing before a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose & Bela Trivedi. Report of yesterday's hearing can be read here. The first day's hearing report can be read here.
The prime point raised by Naiud's lawyers is regarding the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was inserted after the 2018 amendment. As per this section, no investigation under the PC Act can be launched against a public servant without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. Naidu's lawyers argue that the FIR against him and his arrest are illegal since the Governor's sanction was not obtained by the AP CID before adding the former Chief Minister as an accused.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the contention by holding that Section 17A was not applicable to the case before the alleged offences were committed before the 2018 amendment. Naidu challenges this reasoning of the High Court by arguing that it is the date of the registration of the FIR which matters for the applicability of Section 17A. The FIR in this case was registered in December 2021. In response, the State has taken a plea that the inquiry in relation to the offence started prior to the 2018 amendment. Naidu's lawyers dispute this factual claim.
During the hearing yesterday, the bench asked whether it can adopt an interpretation of Section 17A which will defeat the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In response, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, for Naidu, stated that Section 17A was intended as a protection to a public servant from harassment by the police after a change in the government.
Live-updates from today's hearing can be followed in this page.
After discussing with the counsel, #SupremeCourt adjourns until Friday 2 PM, the hearing of the plea by former Andhra Pradesh CM N Chandrababu Naidu to quash FIR against him in a skill development scam case.
Salve: Thursday?
Bose J: Not in same combination. Mr Salve, is Monday okay with you?
Salve: Can I suggest if my friend finishes on Friday, I can reply on Monday.
Rohatgi: Mr Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the state, will not be available on Friday.
Luthra says he will need to confer with Sr Adv Harish Salve about the next date of hearing -
"Let me come back at 2PM and let you know. Mr Salve has stepped out for another matter."
Bench rises.
Bose J: What we are thinking is that Friday at 2 PM.
Luthra: Your Lordships may finish it off today. It can be concluded today.
Bose J: What we can do is, after 2, we'll take up urgent matters...
Rohatgi: May not be possible to conclude. Let's do it on Friday. I'll have to answer queries of the court.
Luthra: Better on Thursday.
Rohatgi: Friday or Monday.
Rohatgi: No question of protection will arise in a case where misappropriation of public funds.
Bose J: How long will you take? We don't want to cut short...
Rohatgi: Maximum an hour.
Rohatgi refers next to Section 6 of General Clauses Act.
Trivedi J: This does not involve inquiry.
Rohatgi: That's true, but Your Lordships query was whether an FIR could be registered.
Rohatgi refers to S 468 of CrPC -
"If it's beyond 3 yrs of punishment, there's no limitation. This means there will have to be an FIR at some stage, investigation and charge-sheet, and then S 468."
Rohatgi refers to Art 20(1) of Constitution, also illustrates -
"Suppose someone has committed an offence and it is discovered years later. Law will say book him. There's no bar, except for where it's hit by limitation."
Trivedi J: Offences under S 13(1)(c) and S 13(1)(d)...No longer offence after 2018 amendment...
Rohatgi: No bar in any law in registering an FIR in relation to an offence that existed, notwithstanding its subsequent deletion.
Trivedi J: Please substantiate this.
Trivedi J: Can an FIR be registered for an offence which is no longer an offence under new act?
Rohatgi: If there's no limitation, yes. Unless there's a limitation, an offence committed at a particular time is not wiped out.