NEW DELHI: Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to quash FIR and criminal proceedings against former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu in the skill development corporation case with respect to charges levelled under the IPC, but a division bench disagreed over his prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi were divided in their interpretation of Section 17A of PC Act, which mandates that sanction is to be taken from competent authority for starting proceedings against a public servant.
The point of contention in arose as the alleged scam took place in 2017 but Section 17A was introduced in July 2018 and the question was whether the provision is applicable in this case.
Due to split verdict, Naidu case referred to larger Supreme Court bench
Justice Bose said that Section 17A was to be applied retrospectively and police could not have proceeded against Naidu without getting the sanction. He, however, made it clear that the authorities can now seek sanction and proceed afresh.
“In absence of such approval, the action under 1988 shall be illegal,” Justice Bose said.
Justice Trivedi said that Section 17A was a substantive and not procedural provision and it could not be applied retrospectively. She said the object of the Act is to combat corruption and Section 17A is to protect honest public servants from harassment.
“The object cannot be to give benefit to dishonest public servants and making it retrospectively applicable will frustrate the object of PC Act. Absence of approval would never be the ground to quash FIR…” Justice Trivedi said. Due to the split verdict, the case was referred to a larger bench, the composition of which is to be decided by CJI D Y Chandrachud.
Naidu was arrested on September 9, 2023 and remained in custody till October 31, when Andhra Pradesh high court granted him interim medical bail.
The case relates to alleged embezzlement of around Rs 370 crore from Andhra Pradesh Skill Development Corporation through fictitious companies between 2014 and 2019.
Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi were divided in their interpretation of Section 17A of PC Act, which mandates that sanction is to be taken from competent authority for starting proceedings against a public servant.
The point of contention in arose as the alleged scam took place in 2017 but Section 17A was introduced in July 2018 and the question was whether the provision is applicable in this case.
Due to split verdict, Naidu case referred to larger Supreme Court bench
Justice Bose said that Section 17A was to be applied retrospectively and police could not have proceeded against Naidu without getting the sanction. He, however, made it clear that the authorities can now seek sanction and proceed afresh.
“In absence of such approval, the action under 1988 shall be illegal,” Justice Bose said.
Justice Trivedi said that Section 17A was a substantive and not procedural provision and it could not be applied retrospectively. She said the object of the Act is to combat corruption and Section 17A is to protect honest public servants from harassment.
“The object cannot be to give benefit to dishonest public servants and making it retrospectively applicable will frustrate the object of PC Act. Absence of approval would never be the ground to quash FIR…” Justice Trivedi said. Due to the split verdict, the case was referred to a larger bench, the composition of which is to be decided by CJI D Y Chandrachud.
Naidu was arrested on September 9, 2023 and remained in custody till October 31, when Andhra Pradesh high court granted him interim medical bail.
The case relates to alleged embezzlement of around Rs 370 crore from Andhra Pradesh Skill Development Corporation through fictitious companies between 2014 and 2019.
