Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
The Supreme Court on Monday declined to consider an out-of-turn plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu against his arrest on September 8 in a 2021 FIR related to the setting up of skill development centres across the state.
A bench of Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra asked senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for Naidu, to approach the court on Tuesday with his plea.
"This is a case related to state of Andhra Pradesh where the opposition is being curbed," the counsel said, adding the petitioner was arrested on September 8.
"Come tomorrow in the mentioning list," the bench told the counsel.
Naidu had approached the Supreme Court on Saturday against the High Court's September 22 order refusing to quash an FIR lodged on December 9, 2021 and order of his judicial remand in the case.
He called the action against him "an orchestrated campaign of regime revenge and to derail the largest opposition, the Telugu Desam Party".
The petitioner -- presently the Leader of Opposition, 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 to custody in a FIR and investigation, barred by law, his plea contended.
"The extent of the political vendetta, is further demonstrated from 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 to the party in power in the State with elections coming near in 2024," it said.
This motivated campaign of harassment has been allowed to continue by the Courts unabated despite patent illegality in the FIR, it claimed.
The allegation against the petitioner (though unfounded) is relatable to the decisions taken in discharge of his official duties as Chief Minister, the plea stated.
"In fact, it is demonstrable... the case has been set up that the petitioner has allegedly made decisions to benefit co accused in setting up skill development centres and abused his official position, although nothing has been brought on record since registration of FIR on December 09, 2021 to show that he or any of his family members are beneficiaries," his plea claimed.
He asked the top court to also examine the High Court's interim order of September 13, and thereafter its vacation on September 19, despite his request and the effect of such vacation in negativing the challenge to the judicial custody remand, and paving the way for a police custody for two days on September 22.
In a special leave petition, he contended that the High Court has disregarded the fact that all the actions had been initiated against him without obtaining mandatory sanction under Section 17 A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
"The petitioner was suddenly named in the FIR registered over twenty-one months ago, arrested in an illegal manner and deprived of his liberty motivated only by political reasons and even though there is no material against him, the petitioner is being made to suffer through an illegal motivated investigation, in clear violation of his fundamental right to fair investigation," his plea stated.
His petition contended both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non est as both have been initiated and investigation continues till date without a mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended on July 26, 2018.