Supreme Court sensational verdict on Chandrababu Quash Petition in Skill Development Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a key verdict on the quash petition filed by former CM and TDP chief Nara Chandrababu Naidu, claiming that the skill development case is illegal and quash the FIR registered against him. Justices Anirudh Bose and Justice Bela Trivedi dissented. They appealed to the Chief Justice to refer the case to a three-judge bench as the verdicts were different. This case reached before the CJI. Justice Bela Trivedi disclosed that as there is a difference of opinion regarding the applicability of 17-A, it is being reported to the Chief Justice for an appropriate report. He opined that this section applies only to cases registered after the Act came into force. Chandrababu’s petition cannot be dismissed based on the law passed in 2018.

But Justice Anirudh Bose expressed a positive opinion that 17-A is applicable to Chandrababu in the skill case. Bose made it clear that the Governor’s permission should be taken to arrest Chandrababu. They said that they have reported to the CJI for a suitable report.

Aspects of Justice Bela M Trivedi’s judgment..

• 17-A cannot be applied to an offense committed during the period when the Act was not in force.
• The 2018 amendment did not mention the date from which Section 17(A) would come into force.
• In these circumstances it cannot be applied to the period before the coming of the Act.
• Section 17(a) should be struck down in this case and applied only to new offences.
• For offenses committed before the amendment of the Act in 2018, the case should be tried as per the sections dated.
• Applying it prior to the enactment of the Act would open up many new controversies. If this is accepted then all the cases registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act will be null and void. That defeats the original intent of the law.
• Section 17(a) was not originally intended to protect corrupt officials.
• Many pending cases and proceedings will be affected if this section is applied to the period before coming into force.
• When IPC sections are also registered.. Merely not taking prior permission under Section 17(A) is not a reason for quashing of FIR.

Aspects of Justice Aniruddha Bose’s judgment..

• Section 17(a) applies in case of skill development. First permission is required.
• Actions taken without prior permission are illegal,
• In these circumstances, it is not appropriate to investigate Chandrababu under section 13(1)c, d and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
• But the order of remand cannot be quashed.
• Absence of prior permission does not invalidate the remand.
• In these circumstances, the petition is being disposed of.

Chandrababu filed a petition claiming that his arrest in the skill development case was illegal and the AP CID registered a case and arrested him without taking prior permission from the Governor under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is known that he filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court after the AP High Court dismissed his quash petition on September 22 last year.