Chandrababu Naidu's Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

17 Oct 2023 2:04 PM IST

  • Chandrababu Naidus Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court will hear former AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's plea for quashing of FIR in the skill development scam case. Another petition against Andhra Pradesh HC's order denying him anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case will also be heard by Supreme Court.A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi will hear the matter. Today is the fifth day of hearing...

    The Supreme Court will hear former AP Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's plea for quashing of FIR in the skill development scam case. Another petition against Andhra Pradesh HC's order denying him anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case will also be heard by Supreme Court.

    A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi will hear the matter. Today is the fifth day of hearing in the case.

    Follow this page for live-updates.

    Live Updates

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:27 PM IST

      Salve reads out from Shanti Conductors (2019) -

      "Thus, a statute is not retrospective merely because it affects existing rights; nor is it retrospective merely because a part of the requisite for its action is drawn from a time and antecedents to its passing."

      Salve: This is the principle. Halsbury says it and Your Lordships cite it with approval.

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:25 PM IST

      Salve: Let me argue on retrospectivity. There's one case that explains it well. A retrospective legislation is one that impairs past rights. Rights are between citizens and upon citizens. Between State and citizens, even a substantive law is considered to be retrospective if it confers new rights. A classic example is Probation of Offenders Act.

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:20 PM IST

      Rohatgi: These are the thoughts of the judge...

      Salve interjects: Now you've taken 18 mins.

      Rohatgi: Not time-bound.

      Salve: You may not be, Mr Rohatgi, but I am.

      Rohatgi quickly concludes.

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:16 PM IST

      Rohatgi: Not only will it not constitute any binding precedent since these are observations...But also the answer arrived at by the learned judge is wrong. Section 17A cannot be a bar when investigation is ordered by this court, but the learned judge held that even SC is helpless.

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:10 PM IST

      Rohatgi: Third judge (Joseph J) ultimately agrees with dismissal of Rafale review. I submit that this will have no binding precedence value because it was neither raised in first instance nor commented on by the other two [judges]. Besides this, on merits, it's wrong in my respectful submission.

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:08 PM IST

      Rohatgi continues arguing in Naidu's plea seeking quashing of FIR in skill development scam case -

      Rohatgi: I want to make a comment of judgment of Justice (Retd) KM Joseph in Rafale case...

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:06 PM IST

      Luthra: Another petition is pending after this.

      Salve: Half an hour is fine. I want to leave 30 mins for Luthra to argue the other matter.

      Trivedi J: We'll have to take it up some other day.

      Bose J: Let's finish this, we'll post the other matter (FiberNet scam case) on Friday. We'll pass an order.

      Luthra: With same understanding?

      Bose J: Yes.

      Pronounces, "Hearing (in anticipatory bail plea) adjourned until Friday."

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:04 PM IST

      Sr Adv Harish Salve interjects: At some point, my learned friend ought to finish. It's 3 PM.

      Rohatgi: The court will sit till 4 PM.

      Salve: Will he take till 4? It's not fair.

      Rohatgi: I'll take another 10 mins. 

    • 17 Oct 2023 3:01 PM IST

      Rohatgi: What was not there in 2015-16 will not apply because S 17A has been held to not be purely procedure. There are elements of substantive right. Therefore, it will run prospectively and will not apply.

    • 17 Oct 2023 2:59 PM IST

      Rohatgi: When the offence was committed, S17A did not exist on statute book. Would be a juxtaposition, since S 13(1)(c) and (d) are invoked (which have subsequently been repealed)...

      Bose J: You are narrowing your argument here: So far as S 13(1)(c) and (d) are concerned, because S 17A was not there, it will not apply.


    Next Story