Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister and TDP leader, N.

Chandrababu Naidu has recently

been implicated in a multi-billion-dollar corruption case involving the Andhra Pradesh Skill
Development Program Scam. A special court in Vijayawada found a prima facie case against
him and charged him with multiple offences including forgery, fraud, and corruption. He has
also been accused of diverting government funds intended for a skill development project
into various shell companies through fraudulent invoices. He was then sentenced to 14 days
of judicial custody after his plea for home remand was denied.

He challenged this order in the HC by seeking cancellation of his judicial remand and
quashing of the FIR filed against him. Senior Advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra,
arguing for Mr. Naidu contended that the lawsuit was politically motivated and falsely
implicated him. He claimed that the registration of the case lacked due procedure according
to Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which bars a police
officer from conducting any enquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been
committed by a public servant, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation
made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties,
without the previous sanction. It was also argued that no case could be brought against Naidu
because the project in question was already up and operating and no public money was
misused. Their whole argument bases on the fact that the FIR is completely illegal as they
haven’t taken the first step necessary to file the FIR. The urged the court to exercise its
discretionary power under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings while citing cases like
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. and Kinjarapu Atchannaidu,
v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh.

State counsels, Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar on the other hard contended that no
sanction was necessary in the case because the inquiry began in 2018, before the passage of
the Amendment Act, which includes a provision for sanction. They stated that Section 17A
PCA is not retrospective in nature by citing the case State of Rajasthan V Tejmal Choudhary.
They further argued that the Arnab Goswami case referenced by the petitioner is irrelevant to
subject at hand as it concerns “free speech” in media.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, the HC dismissed Mr. Naidu’s petition by stating
that no sanction is required and that the petitioner has no right to demand a preliminary
enquiry in this case.
Mr. Naidu then appealed to the SC by filing a special leave petition challenging the HC’s
judgement. During the hearing, the bench raised questions about the applicability of Section
17A of PCA, when the offence was committed prior to the 2018 amendment and whether this
section is applicable when the FIR mentions offences under IPC too.

Petitioner’s counsels argued that 17A is applicable as the inquiry started after the 2018
amendment while the State’s counsels claim that the inquiry started before 2018. The Court
remarked that the main objective of the Act must be considered while adopting an
interpretation of Section 17A.

Salve noted that the interpretation will improve the Act by allowing public officials to act
freely and provide a structure of responsibility for the investigative agency. Salve further
contended that the criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and other accusations brought
against the former chief minister under the Prevention of Corruption Act could not be
separated from the criminal conspiracy, cheating, forgery, and other allegations brought
against him under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

While Rohatgi argued that claimed that Naidu would not be entitled to Section 17A's
protective cloak since the offences did not fall outside the purview of a chief minister's
official duties while emphasizing on the losses suffered by public due to the alleged scam.

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Supreme Court rejected to grant interim bail
despite Mr. Naidu's strong pleas, while reserving its verdict on the Mr. Naidu’s plea for
quashing the FIR in the Skill Development Scam case.