High Court reserves judgment on quash petition, Naidu’s interim bail, custody petitions posted to Sept 20

AMARAVATI: The Andhra Pradesh High Court after hearing arguments of both sides for over six hours on Tuesday, reserved judgment on the quash petition of former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu in the multi-crore skill development scam case.

Senior Supreme Court Lawyer Harish Salve who made his arguments virtually from France, said that he was challenging the FIR itself as there was no mention of Nara Chandrababu Naidu in the FIR filed in 2021.

“This FIR was investigated and only in 2023, the memo was filed. It is now common ground, that no permission under Section 17A (sanction) was granted by the Governor, we submit, as far as CM is concerned, the Governor needs to give permission,” Salve noted.

Terming the FIR as completely illegal, he said that the AP CID had filed the complaint fully knowing about the provisions of Section 17A (Prevention of Corruption Act). They haven't taken the first step necessary to file the FIR. “Here, it is not the date of offense.

The case was registered in 2021, Salve said adding that any investigation that is conducted must follow the law in place. “It cannot be contrary to the law in place at the time of the investigation. The law on the date the action is taken is to be considered. We submit, as far as CM is concerned, the Governor needs to give permission,” Salve said.

Coming to the issue of the use of section 17 A, Salve said that Naidu doesn't have to currently be a public servant. “The reason why this provision was inserted is precisely to combat the "Regime Revenge Litigation", he said and added that the AP CID gave him their counter-only hours before the hearing commenced at the AP High Court on Tuesday morning.

Referring to the Arnab Goswami case, Salve said: “ Deprivation for a single day is a day to many, High Court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of the power when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personal liberty in an excess of state power."

Calling the skill development scam case as an open and shut case, Salve said that the case was resurrected keeping the 2024 general election in mind. “The complaint filed was a GST complaint. The Court has dealt with this case for the other accused,” Salve said.

Supplementing Salve’s arguments, Sidharth Luthra referred to a Karnataka High Court judgment and reiterated that section 17 A was a procedural mandate to be followed in Chandrababu Naidu’s case.

Naidu is not eligible for bail: Rohatgi

Presenting his argument also in virtual mode noted Supreme Court lawyer Mukul Rohatgi on behalf of the AP CID said that Chandrababu Naidu was not eligible for bail as sought by his advocates.

“Even though the case was registered in 2021, Chandrababu Nadi was not immediately arrested as it took two years for the CID to investigate the role of the former CM in the scam,” the senior advocate argued. He pointed out that Section 319 allowed the filing of any number of chargesheets and adding any number of names of the accused.

Counsel for CID further said the investigation agencies would have to find the money trail of the Rs 3,000 crore that was allegedly invested in the establishment of the centres of excellence. He said that Rs 371 crore had been transferred to shell companies and from there the funds have vanished. “The case is completely nascent; investigation cannot be completed in 10 days, especially when petitioner has applied for bail,” he said.

Countering Harish Salve's argument on section 17 A, Rohatgi said: “Argument on Section 17A is completely misconceived. Prima facie, 17A has no bearing. State exchequer has been misused. 17A on the face of it does not apply,” he said.

Rastogi said that the skill development scam had been investigated by the CID, tax agencies and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). “This is not a case where somebody says build a dam but later on it got swept away in flood. In that case, the intent was a public benefit. In the present case, it was a calculated scam and it cannot be guised as official duty,” he argued.

Objecting bail to Chandrababu Naidu, Rastogi said that Section 17A was to protect innocent servants, who took decisions for public benefit.

IRR case

Meanwhile, the High Court posted further hearing of the anticipatory bail petition in the case of the Amaravati Internal Ring Road (IRR) scam to Thursday.

The ACB Special Court also posted the hearing on the custody and interim bail petitions to Wednesday waiting for the outcome of the High Court on the quash and remand review petitions.