Supreme Court Refuses To Restrain Trial Judge From Hearing CID Plea For Police Custody Of Chandrababu Naidu

After the recusal of Supreme Court Judge Justice SVN Bhatti from hearing the petition of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu seeking quashing of his FIR in the skill development scam case, Naidu's lawyers mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice of India for urgent listing.

CJI DY Chandrachud agreed to list the matter on October 3 (the next working day for the Supreme Court). The CJI further orally told Naidu's lawyer that the Court will not restrain the trial judge from hearing the application filed by the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (CID) for police custody of Naidu in the meantime.

The petition was initially listed before a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti. However, as soon as the matter was taken, Justice Khanna said, "My brother has some reservations about hearing the matter." It may be noted that Justice Bhatti hails from the state of Andhra Pradesh.

After Justice Bhatti's recusal, the matter was mentioned by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra before CJI DY Chandrachud. 

Since the matter was listed before the Supreme Court, Naidu's lawyers did not press his bail application before the trial court, Luthra stated. However, he added, since the judge recused from hearing, the petitioner was now in a predicament as the CID will in the meanwhile press the police custody application.

He argued that the FIR was unsustainable in law as no prior sanction as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was obtained before registering it.

"They're seeking police custody. That's the kind of thing that is happening. There is a legal bar under 17A", he said.

He further alleged that the police custody was being sought because of the upcoming elections. He argued–

"From 8th September this man has been picked up illegally, he has been detained. Police custody was granted for two days. Now they want police custody for 15 days. They're roping him in FIR after FIR only because election is coming up."

Additionally, he asserted that there existed a jurisdictional bar in the matter as per Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Section 17A stipulates a mandatory requirement for a Police Officer to seek previous approval of the competent authority for conducting any enquiry/investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant while discharging his duties. In this context, Luthra said– 

"17A goes to the root of the matter. This man cannot be kept in custody in an FIR which could not have been.. Please see 17A of PC Act. No police station can take any action against a public servant acting in discharge of his duties without permission from competent authority".

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the State of AP, contended that the case involves a scam worth crores of rupees and that it pertains to the period before the 2018 amendment which introduced Section 17A.

CJI said that he will list the matter before a bench on October 3.

"My lords may consider one thing...today the issue is that the State is pressing the police custody. Let them not press the police custody", Luthra urged. He added that police custody cannot be sought after the first 15 days of arrest as per the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

However, the CJI remarked–

"We will not restrain the trial judge from dealing with this."

The matter has now been listed for October 3, 2023.

Naidu has filed a special leave petition challenging an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court last week declining to quash a first information report (FIR) arraigning the ex-chief minister as one of the accused in the skill development scam. Naidu was arrested in connection with this case on September 9 by the state’s crime investigation department and has been in custody since.