Supreme Court Upholds IPC Offences Against Naidu in A.P. Skill Development Case, Divided on Requirement of Prior Sanction for Corruption Charges…
Supreme Court Upholds Registration of Offences Against Naidu in A.P. Skill Development Case, Split on Necessity of Prior Sanction for Corruption Charges
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the registration of offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the remand order issued against former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu in the skill development ‘scam’ case. However, the Bench, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, expressed differing opinions on the necessity of prior sanction from the competent authority under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act before registering corruption charges against Mr. Naidu in this case.
Justice Bose, serving as the lead judge on the Bench, asserted that prior sanction under Section 17A was mandatory before proceeding against Mr. Naidu. He suggested that the State could still apply for this sanction from the Governor, emphasizing the need for adherence to legal procedures.
On the other hand, Justice Trivedi, the associate judge on the Bench, held a differing view, stating that such prior approval was not required in this case. She argued that Section 17A did not apply retrospectively, pointing out that the FIR against Mr. Naidu was registered before the amendment in the Act, which introduced Section 17A, in July 2018.
Due to the difference in opinions, the case has been referred to the Chief Justice of India for listing before an appropriate Bench of three judges. This new Bench will be tasked with examining whether prior sanction was necessary before initiating proceedings against Mr. Naidu under the anti-corruption law.
The case, which was reserved for judgment in October of the previous year, revolves around allegations related to a skill development ‘scam.’ Mr. Naidu, who is currently out on regular bail, had argued through his counsel, senior advocate Harish Salve, that corruption charges against him would fail due to the lack of sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
In response, the State, represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar and advocate Mahfooz A. Nazki, contended that the case against Mr. Naidu was a clear case of embezzlement and not remotely related to his duties of public office. The State maintained that Mr. Naidu could not avail the protection of Section 17A.
Mr. Salve countered, stating that Section 17A was designed to protect public servants against regime revenge and argued that no sanction was received under Section 17A before initiating prosecution against Mr. Naidu by registering an FIR 21 months ago.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court had previously declined to quash the criminal cases filed against Mr. Naidu and had also refused to set aside the Anti-Corruption Bureau court’s order to remand him. In its September 22 order of the previous year, the High Court stated that the probe agency had initiated criminal action against Mr. Naidu after an extensive examination of witnesses and collection of documentary evidence following the registration of the crime in 2021. The investigation was reported to be at its final stage, as confirmed by the court