No political vendetta in Naidu’s arrest, Section 17A of PC Act not an umbrella for corrupt to hide, AP govt to SC

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, contended before a bench comprising justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi that there was no “political vendetta” as alleged by Naidu.

New Delhi:The Andhra Pradesh government on Tuesday submitted before the Supreme Court that former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister
N Chandrababu Naidu’s claim of protection under a provision mandating prior approval before conducting an inquiry in a corruption case is unacceptable. Naidu was arrested in the Skill Development Corporation scam case and is currently under judicial remand and lodged in the Rajamahendravaram Central Prison.

Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, representing the Andhra Pradesh government, contended before a bench comprising justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi that there was no “political vendetta” as alleged by Naidu. Rohatgi said Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act is not an umbrella where the corrupt can hide, but is meant to protect honest officials.

Rohatgi said the FIR in the case was registered in 2021 while the offence predates the 2018 amendment made in the PC Act and Naidu was added as an accused in 2023 when certain material surfaced against him. Rohatgi contended that in the present case, such large-scale corruption and misappropriation cannot be ex-facie (on the face of it) a case of discharge of official duty. He stressed that the PC Act is a Parliament effort to root out corruption and protect honest officials, and Naidu’s decisions and actions resulted in immense corruption and loss to the state exchequer.

The bench queried Rohatgi whether the protective umbrella of Section 17A could be applied retrospectively. He replied that Section 17A was framed in 2018, then how can it be applied in 2015? It can be done only if Parliament specifically says so. Rohatgi elaborated questions like what was the official duty, what were the decisions taken, are connected with the case and cannot be decided without looking at the evidence. He emphasised that it can be done only before the trial court.

The hearing in the matter will continue on October 13. Section 17A was introduced by an amendment with effect from July 26, 2018. According to the provision, it is mandatory for a police officer to seek prior approval from the competent authority for conducting any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the PC Act. The apex court was hearing Naidu’s plea against the Andhra Pradesh High Court order declining to quash the FIR against him in the Skill Development Corporation scam case.