Skill Development case: SC verdict on Chandrababu Naidu's plea against HC order today

The High Court on September 22, 2022, refused to quash the FIR lodged on December 9, 2021, and ordered of his judicial remand in a case related to setting up skill development centres. Naidu, however, was granted regular bail in November, last year.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is scheduled to pronounce its order on Tuesday on a petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu questioning his arrest and lodging of an FIR in connection with Rs 3,300 Cr scam in setting up skill development centres.

A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi would render the judgment at 1 pm on January 16, 2024, on a special leave petition filed by the TDP chief against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's order of September 22, 2023, denying him the relief.

Naidu was represented by senior advocates Harish Salve, Sidharth Luthra, Dammalpati Srinivas, Pramod Kumar Dubey and Siddharth Aggarwal. The Andhra Pradesh government was led by senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi, Ranjit Kumar and Jaydeep Gupta and S Niranjan Reddy among others.

His petition challenged his arrest on September 8, 2023, in the 2021 FIR lodged by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) related to setting up skill development centres across the state.

The High Court on September 22, 2023, refused to quash the FIR lodged on December 9, 2021, and ordered of his judicial remand in a case related to setting up skill development centres. Naidu, however, was granted regular bail in November, last year.

The APSSDC was set up in 2016 during Naidu's stint as CM to empower unemployed youth by providing skill training to enhance their employability. The CID claimed the project was initiated without following the standard tendering process and the cabinet did not provide clearance for it.

His petition contended both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR are non-est as both have been initiated and the investigation continues to date without a mandatory approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended on July 26, 2018.

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 the 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 into 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 the discharge of his official duties as Chief Minister, the plea stated.

"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 also to examine the High Court's interim order on September 13 and thereafter its vacation on September 19, 2023, despite his request and the effect of such vacation of order in negativing the challenge to the judicial custody remand and paving the way for police custody for two days on September 22.

In his special leave petition, he contended that the High Court had 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 illegally 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.