AP Govt Urges Supreme Court To Cancel Chandrababu Naidu's Bail In Skill Development Scam Case, Alleges His Family Threatened Officials
During the Supreme Court hearing of Andhra Pradesh's plea against former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's regular bail in the skill development scam case, the state government levelled allegations against the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) president and his family, accusing them of making 'disturbing' and 'threatening' statements against state officials. It was alleged that the Naidu family has...
During the Supreme Court hearing of Andhra Pradesh's plea against former Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's regular bail in the skill development scam case, the state government levelled allegations against the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) president and his family, accusing them of making 'disturbing' and 'threatening' statements against state officials. It was alleged that the Naidu family has vowed retribution against officers of the state involved in the investigation against the TDP supremo, once the party assumes power after the upcoming elections.
A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal was hearing the State of Andhra Pradesh's special leave petition challenging an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court granting regular bail to the Telugu Desam Party president. Naidu was arrested in connection with this case on September 9 by the state crime investigation department and was in custody till he was directed to be released on bail in October.
During today's hearing, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, claimed that the accused's family members have publicly declared their intentions to take action against government officials involved in the investigation once the TDP returns to power, terming this development 'deeply disturbing'. When Justice Trivedi expressed disinclination to consider any information not on the record, Rohatgi informed the bench that the state government had filed an interlocutory application seeking additional documents containing the statements made by Naidu's family members to be filed.
Emphasising the seriousness of the situation, Rohatgi pressed for the cancellation of Naidu's bail. He stated that such threats should not be taken lightly, especially given the impending elections where the TDP is contesting. He argued -
"The State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against a high court order granting bail and I am showing you a circumstance which is very relevant for the cancellation of bail. The family of the accused is openly saying that when we come to power, we will take action against all these officers who have participated in the investigation and taken statements, etcetera...They have threatened that even where Section 164 statements have been made, we will take action. The benefit or liberty of bail cannot accrue to persons who are going to make such threatening statements just before the ensuing elections in which these people are a contesting party. This is very serious."
Rohatgi's plea was met with a request from Naidu's legal team, led by Senior Advocate Harish Salve, for time to file a response to the state government's allegations. The bench granted two weeks for the respondents to file their response, allowing the petitioner-state to file a rejoinder, if needed. The matter was adjourned to March 19 for the next hearing.
In November, the bench while adjourning the proceedings until after the delivery of the judgment in Naidu's plea seeking the quashing of the first information report (FIR) in this case, agreed to issue notice and seek the TDP leader's response to the Andhra Pradesh government's plea. Not only this, but the bench also directed the continuation of a bail condition enjoining Naidu from speaking about sub judice matters arising out of this case in the public domain. However, the court refused to impose the other bail condition prohibiting him from organising or participating in political rallies or meetings. These conditions were imposed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in an interim order, but later not extended when Naidu was granted regular bail.
Last month, Naidu's plea in the skill development case was referred to a larger bench in view of a disagreement between Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi on the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, a prior sanction requirement introduced by an amendment in 2018, and its applicability to Naidu.
Background
Nara Chandrababu Naidu, Telugu Desam Party president and erstwhile Andhra Pradesh chief minister, has been arrested in connection with a skill development scam in the state, with the state crime investigation department claiming to have prime facie evidence of the former chief minister's key role in the alleged embezzlement of around Rs 371 crore from the Andhra Pradesh Skill Development Corporation through fictitious companies during the TDP's rule between 2014 and 2019. He is the 37th accused in a 2021 FIR related to the multi-crore scam involving the state skill development corporation.
The opposition Telugu Desam Party leader was arrested by the Andhra Pradesh CID on September 9. In the same month, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed Naidu's plea for quashing of the FIR. In his petition, he argued that the trial court's order remanding him to custody did not consider that the CID had failed to obtain prior approval from the governor, as required by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, a bench of Justice K Sreenivas Reddy ruled that prior sanction from the competent authority was unnecessary for the investigation since the use of public funds, allegedly for personal gain, did not constitute an act in the discharge of official duties. The court also agreed that given the seriousness of economic offences, the investigation should not be hindered, especially at this early stage. Challenging this ruling, the TDP leader approached the Supreme Court in a special leave petition. The hearing has been concluded and the matter has been reserved for judgment.
Naidu was in custody till he was granted interim medical bail by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in October last year. Later, he was granted regular bail by the single-judge bench in November. Justice T Mallikarjun Rao stated that, based on the available material, it could not be definitively concluded that the misappropriated amounts were diverted to TDP's bank accounts. The court also noted that Naidu couldn't be held responsible for the discrepancies highlighted in the Forensic Audit report, which indicated that out of the Rs 371 crores, at least Rs 241 crores were misappropriated by SISW and Design Tech, diverted to various shell companies. In an interim order, the high court had imposed restrictions on Naidu from giving press interviews or making public comments related to the case. However, while granting bail, the court refused to continue these restrictions, stating that imposing such conditions could impact the electoral prospects of his political party.
Naidu faces charges in three other alleged scams—the FiberNet scam, the IRR alignment scam, and the liquor scam. The top court is also hearing Naidu's plea against the high court declining his request for anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case. The hearing in this case was adjourned to await the decision in the TDP supremo's quash petition in the skill development case.
Case Details
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nara Chandrababu Naidu | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 15099 of 2023