Chandrababu Naidu's Case : Live Updates From Supreme Court Hearing [Day 4]

Rohatgi: SEBI, income tax authorities, etc...The allegation is that AP Skill Development Corp is formed with object They entered into agreement with two companies. There was no tender. Idea was companies would put in 90%...

Rohatgi: SEBI, income tax authorities, etc...The allegation is that AP Skill Development Corp is formed with object They entered into agreement with two companies. There was no tender. Idea was companies would put in 90%...

Rohatgi: I'll read out some parts of counter-affidavit I filed in high court. This will show what they have found in these few days. If [Naidu's] attempt is successful, it will nip the investigation in the bud. It is also not vendetta of state govt. See how many central agencies are investigating the issue...

Rohatgi refers next to Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation (2014).

"[Prior sanction requirement] cannot become a shield to protect officials, whether it is Section 197 or Section 17A."

Rohatgi: On the construction of the Prevention of Corruption Act now...

Refers to Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh (2012).

Rohatgi: A whistleblower wrote to the dept, wrote to the CBI, and then the CBI forwarded it...

Justice Bose: Is Whistleblower Protection Act operable now?

Rohatgi: Yes, it is operable. Some parts of it was applied in Godhra cases. I recently came across a chargesheet where witnesses names' were redacted.

Rohatgi: Fact that inquiry had commenced on this issue can be demonstrated by two documents dated 14.05.2018 and 05.06.2018. These documents were given to HC judge, argued, and emphasised. The judge also accepted the arguments in the order.

Rohatgi: Petitioner says that he has nothing to do with this decision. If he has nothing to do with the decision, why is he invoking Section 17A? It's contradictory.

Justice Bose: It can be argued that his stance is that he was not involved in the decisions. But what the prosecution is alleging is that he did it at the...

Rohatgi: I'm saying, if petitioner is saying he has nothing to do with it, then how can you say in exercise of official duty? Section 17A would only apply if he says that I did it but I'm covered. His stances are mutually destructive.

Rohatgi: I've never seen S 482 being filed on the same day. Argue it in high court, and then on the same day, file an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Rohatgi: Only caveat is, when parties are in agreement about whether something is in discharge of public function. Otherwise, this cannot be decided in S 482 petition. How will you decide within 5-10 days of investigating commencing? There is no way the court will agree to scuttle the investigation at this stage.