New Delhi: Former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister, N Chandrababu Naidu, has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court declining to quash an FIR lodged on December 9, 2021, and also order of his judicial remand in a case related to setting up Skill Development Centres.
Naidu’s plea said he was suddenly named in the FIR registered 21 months ago and was arrested in an illegal manner and deprived of his liberty only for political reasons. Naidu said it is "an orchestrated campaign of regime revenge and to derail the largest opposition, the Telugu Desam Party".
The plea contended that the petitioner, presently the Leader of the Opposition and the national president of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) and former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh having served for more than 14 years, has been illegally put in custody and investigation was barred by law."
The plea contended that the apex court, as well as various High Courts, have held that no police officer can conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into an offence done by a public representative where the offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public representative during his tenure without the prior approval of the competent authority.
Also read: EX-Andhra Pradesh CM Chandrababu Naidu moves SC to challenge arrest in Skill Development 'scam'
“Without such approval, any inquiry/investigation undertaken would be void initio…the present scenario of regime revenge and political vendetta is exactly what Section 17-A seeks to restrict by protecting innocent persons. The initiation of investigation without such approval vitiates the entire proceedings since inception and the same is a jurisdictional error," said the plea.
The plea submitted that the extent of the political vendetta is further demonstrated by the belated application for grant of police custody on September 11, 2023, which names the political opponent i.e; the TDP and also the petitioner's family, which is being targeted to crush all opposition parties in the state ahead of elections in 2024.
The plea claimed that the allegation against the petitioner (though unfounded) is relatable to the decisions taken in the discharge of his official duties as the Chief Minister. The plea contended that the case set up is that the petitioner has allegedly made decisions to benefit co-accused in setting up Skill Development Centres in the state and misused his official position, although nothing has been brought on record since the registration of FIR on December 9, 2021, to show that petitioner or any of his family members are beneficiaries.
The plea submitted that the High Court has gravely erred by misreading the requirement of mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as amended on July 26, 2018) by interpreting it restrictively and diluting its effect.
“It is further submitted that the High Court ought to have seen that the registration of the FIR and all consequent actions of the Respondent, including remand of the petitioner, suffer from patent illegalities and therefore the impugned judgement is absolutely unsustainable in law," said the plea.
