N. Chandrababu Naidu former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh On September 9th 2023, was taken into custody on charges of misappropriation of funds allocated for the Skill Development Corporation. The Supreme Court of India, in a recent development, has declined to grant interim bail to Mr. Naidu. Additionally, the court has postponed its verdict on his petition to have the case registered against him quashed. This delay stems from the fact that the charges against him do not fall under the Corruption Prevention Act, which provides government employees with protection against criminal prosecution for actions or decisions made during the course of their official duties.
Senior advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra, representing the 73-year-old leader of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP), appealed for his interim release during the court proceedings. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi presiding over the case heard their arguments and stated, “We heard the main point. We will take a decision.”
The charges against Chandrababu Naidu relate to the alleged misappropriation of Skill Development Corporation funds, which is believed to have resulted in a substantial financial loss of over ₹300 crore to the state exchequer. Mr. Naidu has also submitted a bail application in the FiberNet case, for which he was summoned by the state police on October 16. It is worth noting that the state government assured the court last week that they would not take any further actions against him until Tuesday, the scheduled hearing date for the FiberNet case. The court, acknowledging this assurance, has set the case for a hearing on Friday, under the condition that there will be no arrest in the meantime.
Harish Salve argued for the release of a man who has been in custody for nearly 40 days, suggesting interim bail as an option. He contended that if the court did not accept his plea in the primary matter, the individual could return to custody. In the main petition, Naidu asserted that his arrest was unlawful. He claimed that the Crime Investigation Department (CID) of the state police failed to obtain prior approval from the competent authority under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This section restricts agencies from investigating public servants on corruption charges without government approval.
The state government, represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, argued that the accused couldn’t seek interim bail until the Section 17A issue was resolved. The court granted time until Friday for filing written arguments opposing Naidu’s petition.
Luthra stated that they were arguing for interim bail, regardless of their defense under Section 17A. He emphasized that if the remand ended, the release would follow, but seeking interim bail was a separate right. Nevertheless, the bench showed no inclination to issue an interim order.
During the proceedings, Naidu’s counsel contended that the investigating agency should not conduct an inquiry against a public servant without approval, as this would undermine the protection provided under Section 17A. Salve pointed out that previous Supreme Court judgments clearly established that no case could proceed against a public servant without Section 17A approval.
Naidu’s petition alleged political vendetta by the current political regime in Andhra Pradesh. It claimed that multiple cases were being lodged against him to negatively impact his party’s performance ahead of the state’s upcoming assembly polls.
The allegation against Naidu revolves around the alleged diversion of government funds meant for a skill development project. This was done by creating shell companies using fraudulent invoices that did not correspond to the actual delivery of services.
Naidu approached the Supreme Court on September 23 after the Andhra Pradesh High Court declined to quash the First Information Report (FIR) registered against him. The High Court ruled that Section 17A protection would not apply as the actions in question were unrelated to his official duties during his tenure as the state’s chief minister.
Naidu also questioned the 21-month delay in naming him in the FIR. He alleged that the Andhra Pradesh CID was acting at the behest of the ruling party to harm the chances of his party, TDP, in the upcoming state election early next year. He characterized it as a clear example of political retaliation.