In a recent development, the Supreme Court addressed the case of former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, who is facing charges in the Skill Development Corporation scam. The court deliberated on the significance of Section 17A, introduced in July 2018, which mandates prior approval for inquiries or investigations involving public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
A bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi emphasized the need to interpret Section 17A in a manner that upholds the Act's core objective of combating corruption, preventing it from being undermined. This discussion arose during senior advocate Harish Salve's representation of Naidu, who argued that Section 17A was introduced to protect public servants from harassment while discharging their official duties, PTI reported.
Salve asserted that the inquiry against Naidu had commenced in 2021, making Section 17A applicable to the case. He rejected the state government's claim that the probe had started before the 2018 amendment and clarified that a preliminary inquiry in 2021 led to the FIR.
The ongoing hearing, which lasted nearly two hours, did not yield a conclusive decision and is set to continue on the following day. Notably, on October 3, Naidu had previously failed to obtain relief from the apex court regarding the case.
The Andhra Pradesh government has contended that Naidu's request to quash the FIR should be rejected, as Section 17A of the PC Act, which came into force in July 2018, was applicable, while the CBI initiated the investigation in 2017.
Naidu, aged 73, was arrested on September 9 on allegations of misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation during his tenure as chief minister in 2015, causing an alleged loss of Rs 371 crore to the state exchequer. His judicial remand has been extended until October 5.
The CID, in its remand report, accused Naidu of engaging in criminal conspiracy, fraudulent misappropriation of government funds, disposal of property under a public servant's control, cheating, forging documents, and destroying evidence.
Naidu approached the Supreme Court on September 23, challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's dismissal of his petition to quash the FIR. The high court had emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be thwarted at an early stage and that quashing an FIR should be an exception rather than a rule.
