Skill development 'scam': SC gives split verdict on Naidu's plea seeking quashing of FIR; matter referred to higher bench

New Delhi [India], January 16 : The two-judge bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict in a plea filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu, seeking quashing of the FIR and criminal proceedings against him in connection with the skill development 'scam' case.
A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi differed on the interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, which makes prior sanction of the government mandatory to prosecute public servants in relation to an act done in discharging their official functions or duties.
Following a split verdict, the matter was referred to a larger bench.
"As we have taken different interpretations on Section 17A, we refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions," Justice Bose said.
Both the judges, however, upheld the remand order of the magistrate and the Andhra Pradesh High Court while dismissing the plea seeking quashing of the FIR.
The split verdict came on a special leave petition filed by the former Andhra CM, challenging the high court order denying him relief in the skill development case.
Pronouncing the verdict, Justice Aniruddha Bose held that if any inquiry, enquiry or investigation has been initiated without the previous approval of the competent authority under Section 17A, it shall be deemed illegal.
Justice Bose added that the authorities can now apply sanctions.
Section 17A, inserted in July 2018 by way of an amendment, requires the investing agencies to obtain prior sanction from the competent authorities for the registration of FIR and initiate an "inquiry, enquiry or investigation" against a public servant responsible for a decision or recommendation resulting in loss to the state exchequer and corruption.
Justice Trivedi held that the Amendment Act, 2018 can't be used to seek mandatory approval of the authorities for the offences prior to July 26, 2018, when the application of the new provisions was notified.
The Amendment Act, 2018 would be applied prospectively, not to offences that occurred before the date of notification, Justice Trivedi ruled.
"Lack of approval of Section 17A cannot be a ground to quash the FIR especially when offences under the IPC are also registered," Justice Trivedi added.
Naidu had approached the top court seeking the quashing of the FIR, citing Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and challenging his arrest by the Andhra Pradesh police's CID in the skill development 'scam' case.
He moved the SC against the high court judgement rejecting his plea for the quashing of the FIR. Naidu was granted regular bail in November, last year.
Naidu sought the quashing of the FIR registered by AP-CID in the alleged Rs 371 crore skill development scam on the ground that the police did not obtain prior sanction from the Governor as mandated under the PC Act.
The Andhra Pradesh government objected to former CM's plea, saying Section 17A of the PC Act can't be parachuted in cases of alleged corruption leading to a loss to the state exchequer. The government claimed further the alleged act of graft was committed before the insertion of the section in the Act on July 26, 2018.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing Andhra Pradesh in the apex court, argued that no prior sanction of the state's Governor was required for registering FIR and the consequent investigation against Naidu for alleged corruption and loss to the state during the implementation of his skill development project between 2014 and 2016.
In his plea, Naidu contended that the Andhra Pradesh High Court rejected his petition by ignoring his pleas that under Section 17A of the PC Act, which came into force on July 26, 2018, no FIR against a public servant could be registered without prior sanction of the appropriate authority.
The FIR against Naidu was registered on December 9, 2021, and he was listed as accused number 37 in the case on September 7, 2023. Section 17A of the PC Act was not complied with as "no permission was obtained from the competent authority", stated the plea filed by Naidu.
Naidu, who is presenty the Leader of the Opposition in the Andhra assembly and the national president of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), called the action against him "an orchestrated campaign of regime revenge and to derail the largest opposition, the Telugu Desam Party".
"The extent of the political vendetta is further demonstrated by the belated application for grant of police custody on September 11, 2023, which names the political opponent, i.e. the TDP and also the petitioner's family, which is being targeted to crush all opposition to the party in power in the State with elections coming near in 2024," Naidu added in his plea.
"This motivated campaign of harassment has been allowed to continue unabated by the courts despite the patent illegality in the FIR," the plea added.
Naidu also challenged the high court order denying him anticipatory bail in the Fibre Net 'scam' case.