Skill development scam: SC refuses Naidu’s urgent plea to quash FIR, moves hearing to next day

Hyderabad: The Supreme Court on September 25 refused to hear TDP chief Chandrababu Naidu’s urgent plea to quash the FIR and judicial remand in the Skill Development Corporation scam case. Since the petition was not included in Monday’s oral mentioning list of urgent hearing matters, the CJI refused to hear it and instructed Chandrababu Naidu’s advocate, Siddarth Luthra, to bring up the matter on Tuesday.

Chandrababu Naidu filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court on Saturday, as he did not receive any relief in the High Court. The AP HC, presided over by a single bench judge, K Srinivas Reddy, noted that “the investigation is on the fulcrum of attaining finality,” and stated, “this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned proceedings. Hence, the quash petition on FIR and judicial remand is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.”

Meanwhile, the ACB court has extended the judicial remand for the second time, for 11 days, until October 5. The ACB court presided over by the Single Bench Judge Hima Bindu, will hear the bail petition request of Naidu, while the Andhra Pradesh CID has filed a counter-petition requesting custody of Chandrababu Naidu for five more days, postponed for Tuesday.

What is in the petition?

The petition filed in the Supreme Court argued that Chandrababu Naidu’s name ‘suddenly appeared’ in the FIR, and he was arrested in an illegal manner for political reasons. According to Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018, no police officer can conduct an investigation into an offence committed by a public servant relating to any recommendation or decision made by that public servant in the discharge of their public functions without prior approval from the competent authority. In this case, the competent authority was the governor, and his approval was not obtained, the petition said.

The current scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta aligns with the purpose of Section 17-A, which seeks to protect innocent individuals. The initiation of an investigation without such approval is argued to taint the entire process from its inception, constituting a jurisdictional error. Therefore, the registration of the FIR without approval under Section 17-A, according to the plea, is “absolutely illegal” and “nullifies all consequent actions, including investigation, arrest, and custody.”