LI Network
Published on: October 10, 2023 at 12:46 IST
Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu, currently under arrest in the Skill Development Corporation scam, faced a pivotal development in his legal battle as the Supreme Court issued a crucial notice on Monday.
The court addressed Naidu’s contention that prior approval should be mandatory before conducting an inquiry in a corruption case under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was emphasized that this provision should be interpreted in a way that upholds the primary objective of countering corruption.
Section 17A was introduced through an amendment on July 26, 2018. It mandates that a police officer must seek prior approval from the competent authority before conducting an inquiry, investigation, or enquiry into an offense allegedly committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
The Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi, made it clear that while interpreting Section 17A, the primary aim of the PC Act to combat corruption should not be compromised. The court affirmed that any interpretation that frustrates the objective of the Act cannot be adopted.
Senior advocate Harish Salve, representing Chandrababu Naidu, argued that Section 17A was introduced by Parliament to safeguard public servants from unwarranted harassment when they make official decisions. Salve contended that this provision strengthens the law by allowing public servants to work without fear of harassment.
During the hearing, Salve also pointed out that the inquiry against Naidu had commenced in 2021, making Section 17A applicable to the case. He refuted the state government’s claim that the probe had begun before the 2018 amendment.
The hearing, which extended for nearly two hours, remained inconclusive, and it is set to continue on the following day.
Chandrababu Naidu was arrested on September 9 in connection with allegations of misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation during his tenure as Chief Minister in 2015, resulting in an alleged loss of Rs. 371 crore to the state exchequer.
The CID has accused him of criminal conspiracy, fraudulent misappropriation of government funds, disposal of property under the control of a public servant, cheating, forging documents, and destroying evidence.
The Supreme Court’s examination of Section 17A of the PC Act in Chandrababu Naidu’s case holds significant implications for the interpretation and application of this legal provision in corruption cases involving public servants.