Chandrababu Naidu's Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing [Day 4]

Rohatgi: Where there is a doubt regarding an interpretation, this court has ruled in favour of an interpretation enabling eradication of corruption. This is Swami's case. I'll show.

Rohatgi: Question on fact regarding applicability of Section 17A cannot be decided in a quashing petition. Inquiry had commenced in June 2018, before this section was introduced. Also it cannot be read into isolation to provide an umbrella of protection. It appears in Prevention of Corruption Act and cannot be interpreted de hors object of the legislation.

Rohatgi (referring to SM Mansoori): This was a case of S 197 which also mandates prior sanction. S 197 is a stricter bar against prosecution. Therefore, you cannot decide this question in Section 482 unless the parties are in agreement that there is a recommendation or decision in discharge of public duties.

Rohatgi reads out from SM Mansoori (2023) -

"Looking at the nature of the allegations in the complaint, at this stage, it is impossible to conclude that the acts allegedly done by the first respondent were committed by her while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of her official duty."

Rohatgi: Section 17A is not an absolute bar like Section 19. The object is to provide one modicum of protection to honest officers so that they do not shy away from...

Rohatgi: Neither Section 197 nor Section 19 (which is an absolute bar) can be an obstacle...These cannot have a stultifying effect. All these can be debated when facts are examined by judge because of differences of perception between accused and prosecution.

Justice Bose: Not on those provisions.

Rohatgi: Section 17A was born in July 2018. The offences are from 2015 and 2016 and as such no benefit of Section 17A can be given because it was not on the statute book. Alternatively, allegations according to FIR are such that they can never be remotely considered to be a decision, determination, or recommendation in discharge of public functions.

Rohatgi: Bar applies only if it's a bona fide discharge of official power. Then prior sanction will be required.

Justice Bose: He hasn't started inquiry yet. How will he know? Kindly think of workability of provision.

Justice Trivedi: Now question is whether Section 17A be applicable?

Rohatgi: No, it won't be applicable.

Rohatgi refers next to SM Mansoori (2023).

Justice Bose: We are having a doubt about implementation. The bar is on starting of inquiry. Since it's an entry-point bar, how will police officer decide? Inquiry and enquiry.

Rohatgi: Based on material. He will have to take a call. 

Rohatgi refers to RR Kishore (2023) -

"In this case, the court says when it declared S 6A as void, it will be considered to be void from the date of inception - a stillbirth."