Chandrababu Naidu's Case: Can Section 17A Be Interpreted In A Manner Defeating Purpose Of PC Act? Supreme Court Asks Harish Salve

While hearing former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu's plea, the Supreme Court on Monday (October 9) asked if the Court can adopt an interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 which will defeat the objectives of the Act.Section 17A, inserted after the 2018 amendment made to the PC Act in July 2018, mandates that prior sanction from the competent authority must be obtained before launching an investigation against a public servant. Naidu is challenging his arrest in connection with the skill development scam case on the ground that the Andhra Pradesh Crime Investigation Department (AP-CID) has not obtained the sanction of the Governor before adding him as the 37th accused in the case.Senior Advocate Harish Salve, appearing for the Telugu Desom Party chief and the Opposition Leader of Andhra Pradesh, argued that Section 17A is inserted to curb the instances of "regime revenge".A bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi was hearing Naidu’s special leave petition challenging an order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court last month declining to quash a first information report (FIR) arraigning the ex-chief minister as one of the accused in the skill development scam. . Naidu was arrested in connection with this case on September 9 by the state’s crime investigation department and has been in custody since.The hearing last week revolved mainly around the applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with the Justice Bose-led bench raising questions about whether the provision would apply to an offence predating the 2018 amendment that introduced it. The court also questioned whether Section 17A would be applicable when the FIR mentioned offences under both the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code, 1860. A battery of lawyers - including senior advocates Harish Salve, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Sidharth Luthra - appearing for Naidu, argued that Section 17A should be applicable since the inquiry commenced after the 2018 amendment, regardless of the date of the offence. On the contrary, the State, represented by Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, contended that the inquiry began before 2018. The hearing was finally adjourned with an instruction to the state government to provide the entire compilation of documents submitted to the high court.Salve made the following arguments on behalf of the Petitioner before the Apex Court today: Enquiry Commenced In 2021 Therefore Section 17A of the PC Act Is Applicable To The CaseSalve argued that with regard to Section 17A of the PC Act, the amendment would apply retrospectively. He also sought to establish that the enquiry against Naidu commenced only in 2021 and hence Section 17A of the PC Act would be applicable to the case. He refuted the State's claim that the enquiry commenced before the 2018 amendment.Salve referred to the remand order and pointed out that it records that the case was based on a preliminary enquiry in 2021. So, any inquiry or investigation launched against a public servant after the 2018 amendment will require sanction under Section 17A, regardless of the date of the offence.He argued that the submission of the State that the inquiry started before the 2018 amendment (which introduced Sec 17A) is factually wrong. "It was not the inquiry which led to this FIR. It appears some inquiry was done, which was folded up. Thereafter, a fresh enquiry was done".He argued that S. 17A of the PC Act was introduced to prevent cases where a person is politically targeted after the change of a regime.He also submitted that in the remand report, it was said that though there was an earlier complaint, nothing was done. Salve also told the Court that High Courts are divided on the question of the applicability of Section 17A . Some High Courts have taken the view that S.17A must follow the date of offence, some other High Courts have taken the view that S.17A must follow the date of the FIR, he submitted. He also referred to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal V Union of India to argue that if the arrest is illegal, then the subsequent remand order will not validate an illegal arrest.Need Approval For Investigation Under Section 17A of the PC ActSalve contended that prior to adding Naidu as an accused, the permission of the Governor ought to have been taken. "Even if you had 17A approval at inquiry stage, you need approval again for investigation" he said.Salve argued that there is an Standard Operation Procedure published by Government of India on how S.17A of the PC Act is to be applied. "They have said that at every stage permission is to be taken" he said. There is a mandatory requirement for a police officer to seek prior approval for conducting any inquiry or investigation, he pointed out. "This is the Standard Operating Procedure. Of course, it is not binding on the Court. But it will help in understanding the interpretation," he said. Justice...

Chandrababu Naidu's Case: Can Section 17A Be Interpreted In A Manner Defeating Purpose Of PC Act? Supreme Court Asks Harish Salve

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Chandrababu Naidu's Case: Can Section 17A Be Interpreted In A Manner Defeating Purpose Of PC Act? Supreme Court Asks Harish Salve

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers