'Come Tomorrow' : Supreme Court Refuses To Take Up Chandrababu Naidu's Plea To Quash FIR Today
'The Supreme Court on Monday refused urgent mentioning of the petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Andra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) in connection with the skill development scam case and also challenging his remand in the case.The petition was not included in the list of oral mentioning matters...
'The Supreme Court on Monday refused urgent mentioning of the petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Andra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) in connection with the skill development scam case and also challenging his remand in the case.
The petition was not included in the list of oral mentioning matters for today(oral mentioning is made before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing). The CJI refused out-of-turn mentioning for Naidu's petition and asked his lawyer Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra to mention the matter tomorrow.
Luthra highlighted the urgency of the matter, stating–
"This is related to the State of Andhra Pradesh where the opposition is being curbed...he was arrested on September 8."
However, the CJI was not inclined to allow the mentioning today and asked Luthra to come tomorrow on the mentioning list.
Naidu had filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court on Saturday challenging the judgment delivered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing his plea to quash the FIR. Following the dismissal of the petition, a Court in Vijayawada granted the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department(CID) two days police custody of Naidu for interrogation.
The leader of the opposition Telugu Desom Party was arrested earlier this month and has been under custody since then. He is arrayed as the 37th accused in the FIR registered by the AP CID in 2021 over the multi-crore scam in relation to the Andhra Pradesh State Skill Development Corporation.
Recently, a single bench of Justice K. Sreenivas Reddy of the High Court rejected the argument raised by Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra on behalf of Naidu that the prior sanction as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was necessary for the FIR.
The allegations relating to the fabrication of documents and misappropriation of funds cannot be regarded as discharge of official duties and hence the protection of Section 17A was not available, held the High Court. The High Court further said that the pursuant to the registration of the crime in the year 2021, the CID examined as many as more than 140 witnesses and collected documents to the tune of more than 4000. Noting that the investigation is attaining its finality, the High Court said that it cannot interfere and dismissed the petition as "devoid of merit".
Naidu's arguments in the petition :
Investigation Without Mandatory Approval Under Section 17-A, POCA
As per the petition filed in the Supreme Court, Naidu was "suddenly named in the FIR" and arrested in an illegal manner for political reasons. As per the petition, both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR in the matter had been initiated without a mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. This was against the rule that no police officer could conduct any investigation into an offence committed by a public servant where the offence was relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his public functions without the prior approval of the competent authority. It is stated that in the present case the competent authority was the Governor and his approval was not taken. It stated–
"Section 17-A provides a filter from vexatious litigation. The present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what Section 17-A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error."
Accordingly, the registration of the FIR without approval under Section 17-A, as per the plea is "absolutely illegal" and "nullifies all consequent actions including investigation, arrest and custody" of Naidu.
Political Vendetta Against Opposition
The plea states that the FIR against Naidu is a case of "political vendetta" as he is the leader of the opposition in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The petition asserts that extent of the political vendetta is demonstrated from the belated application for grant of police custody, which names the political opponent i.e. the TDP and also Naidu's family "who are being targeted to crush all opposition to the party in power in the Respondent State with elections coming near in 2024." Highlighting that the High Court had erred in its decision, the petition adds–
"The High Court has at one point observed that exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it is not required to do a mini trial but yet has recorded detailed factual submissions which had no relevance to the challenge of the legal bar raised and itself conducted a mini trial to arbitrarily assume without basis that Petitioner has made ‘personal benefits’ for himself."
Andhra Pradesh CID Acting At Behest Of Ruling Party
As per the petition, the Andhra Pradesh CID has been acting at the behest of the ruling party in order to hurt Naidu's party’s chances in the state election due early next year. It adds–
"The CID is threatening the officers and others to implicate the Petitioner, his family and the Party. The continuing political vendetta by the State Administration is demonstrated from the fact that various senior leaders of the Petitioner’s party have in the past been arrested and now hastily are being sought to be implicated in false cases."