Chandrababu Naidu's Case Hearing : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 3]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

10 Oct 2023 4:31 AM GMT

  • Chandrababu Naidus Case Hearing : Live Updates From Supreme Court [Day 3]

    The Supreme Court will continue hearing today former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu's petition to quash FIR in relation to skill development scam case.This is the third day of hearing before a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose & Bela Trivedi. Report of yesterday's hearing can be read here. The first day's hearing report can be read here.The prime point raised by Naiud's lawyers...

    The Supreme Court will continue hearing today former Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu's petition to quash FIR in relation to skill development scam case.

    This is the third day of hearing before a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose & Bela Trivedi. Report of yesterday's hearing can be read here.  The first day's hearing report can be read here.

    The prime point raised by Naiud's lawyers is regarding the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was inserted after the 2018 amendment. As per this section, no investigation under the PC Act can be launched against a public servant without obtaining prior sanction from the competent authority. Naidu's lawyers argue that the FIR against him and his arrest are illegal since the Governor's sanction was not obtained by the AP CID before adding the former Chief Minister as an accused.

    The Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected the contention by holding that Section 17A was not applicable to the case before the alleged offences were committed before the 2018 amendment. Naidu challenges this reasoning of the High Court by arguing that it is the date of the registration of the FIR which matters for the applicability of Section 17A. The FIR in this case was registered in December 2021. In response, the State has taken a plea that the inquiry in relation to the offence started prior to the 2018 amendment. Naidu's lawyers dispute this factual claim.

    During the hearing yesterday, the bench asked whether it can adopt an interpretation of Section 17A which will defeat the purpose of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In response, Senior Advocate Harish Salve, for Naidu, stated that Section 17A was intended as a protection to a public servant from harassment by the police after a change in the government.

    Live-updates from today's hearing can be followed in this page.

    Live Updates

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:41 AM GMT

      Salve: Offences here (in Rafale case) relate back to 2016. This authoritatively lays down the law. (Referring to Joseph J's opinion)

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:37 AM GMT

      Salve refers to Justice (Retd) KM Joseph's separate judgment in Yashwant Sinha (2019), in which #SupremeCourt dismissed Rafale review petitions.

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:34 AM GMT

      Bose J: Till lunch we are discharging the board, then we'll take the regular matters.

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:30 AM GMT

      Salve: The object of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not only to strengthen the law on corruption, but also to ensure that it is not abused. I pointed this out yesterday as well.

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:24 AM GMT

      Salve: Absence of prior sanction has always been considered to be fatal to the inquiry. It's not that offences are eviscerated. The agency will have to procure a sanction and then begin the inquiry [anew]. Then they're back on track.

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:23 AM GMT

      Salve on application of S 17A of PC Act -

      Trivedi J: If you say this is procedural, would it confer any substantive rights?

      Salve: Sanction provision, this court has held, is a protection to accused, although procedurally. I'll provide the judgment.

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:19 AM GMT

      Salve: In a criminal case, why a counter-affidavit? Records are here.

      Rohatgi: That's the procedure of this court now. If we have a restatement of law, we should totally go back to original position.

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:18 AM GMT

      Rohatgi (for caveator State) argues that the petition ought to be dismissed at the outset, saying "It's a gross petition."

      Bose J: Notice was not envisioned under A 136. It was evolved through practice. Initially, it was granting leave...

    • 10 Oct 2023 5:16 AM GMT

      Bose J: It's a pleasure to hear you, Mr Salve. But how long will you take? Your colleagues are waiting.

      Sr Adv Harish Salve: One hour.

      Sr Adv Mukul Rohatgi: Will come back after then that. Been waiting for 3 days...In a matter like this, where Your Lordships will have to decide whether to issue notice. 

    Next Story