The
Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on a plea filed former Chief
Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu seeking to quash the FIR registered against him
in the skill development scam case.
Justices
Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi reserved its verdict after hearing the
arguments of senior advocates Harish Salve and Sidhartha Luthra, appearing for
Naidu, and Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government.
As
the hearing was at the fag end, Salve urged the bench to give Naidu interim
bail and said, "He is a 73-year-old man who has been inside for 40 days. I
have a request for interim bail. Court may consider releasing him. If you
eventually rule against him, he can go back. In the 2015-16 inquiry, the
government's lament was that nothing came out of it. Now, in 2021, they are
desperately grasping at straws."
The
bench, however, rejected the request and stated in the order, "Hearing
concluded. We have heard the main matter and we will deliver the
judgment."
Meanwhile,
the bench posted for hearing on Friday another plea of Naidu in FiberNet scam
case. It also extended its earlier order asking the government not to arrest
Naidu till October 20, Friday. He has also challenged the Andhra Pradesh High
Court order denying him anticipatory bail in the FiberNet scam case.
Naidu
had approached the top court seeking quashing of FIR and cited Section 17A of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, to challenge his arrest by the Andhra
Pradesh police's CID in skill development scam. He had challenged the High
Court judgment rejecting his plea for the quashing of FIR. Naidu is currently
in judicial custody.
Naidu
has sought quashing of 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 Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Andhra
Pradesh government has objected to Naidu's plea saying Section 17A of the PC
Act can't parachute in the cases of alleged corruption leading to loss to the
State exchequer that happened before its insertion in the Act on July 26, 2018.
Section
17A, inserted in July 2018 by way of an amendment, requires the investing
agencies to take prior sanction of the competent authorities for the
registration of FIR and initiating "inquiry, enquiry or
investigation" against a public servant responsible for the decision or
recommendation resulting loss to the State exchequer and corruption.
Senior
advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Andhra Pradesh, had told the top court
that no prior sanction of the State Governor was required for registering FIR
and the consequent investigation against former Chief Minister Naidu for
alleged corruption and loss to the State in his skill development project
during 2014-2016.
In
his plea, Naidu has contended that Andhra Pradesh High Court had rejected his
petition last moth by ignoring his pleading that under Section 17A of the PC
Act, which came into force from 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 added as
accused number 37 in the case on September 7, 2023. Section 17A of PC Act was
not complied with as "no permission was obtained from the competent authority",
the plea stated.
As
Naidu was the Chief Minister at the time of the commission of the alleged
offence relating to the skill development scam, the competent authority would
have been the Governor of the State.
Naidu,
presently the Leader of Opposition, the national president of the Telugu Desam
Party (TDP), called the action against him as "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 from 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," it added.
This
motivated campaign of harassment has been allowed to continue by the Courts
unabated despite patent illegality in the FIR, the appeal stated.