Chandrababu Naidu's Plea Against FIR & Remand : Andhra Pradesh High Court Reserves Verdict [Live Updates]

Hearing concludes. Matter reserved for final orders. Judgement in 2 days.

Luthra: A lot of material is shown by the other side. Email that they are relying on is in contrast with the remand report

Luthra: 4 things I want to say

a) no answer to Section 17A

b) nature of acts falls within Section 17a

c) none of the judgments relied upon have similarity in facts

d) there is lot of confusion regarding 90% and 10%

Luthra: My argument is regarding Section 17A but the question remains what to do with this gentleman? Please consider the Arnab Goswami case

Bench: Arguments are done by both sides. Now let me take a decision

Bench: Let me pass an order on the whole. When you have argued the whole case, you can't say pass judgement about one half and not the other half

Luthra: There is a change in the law, how quash petitions are to be seen. Don't look at just what is sought. Look a little deeper.

Luthra: Neeharika case which is vehemently relied upon has been clarified in AP Mahesh

Luthra: Issue in Rafale was exactly the same. The claim of the State was that the actions of petitioner do not warrant Section 17A sanction

Luthra relies on Justice Joseph's concurring opinion in Rafale case