Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Chandrababu Naidu's Plea , Judges Disagree On Applicability Of S.17A PC Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 16) referred to a larger bench a plea by former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu for quashing of a first information report (FIR) in the skill development scam case. Naidu was arrested in connection with this case on September 9 by the state crime investigation department (CID). He was in custody till he was granted interim medical bail by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in October last year. Later, he was granted regular bail by the single-judge bench.The verdict today was delivered by Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Bela M Trivedi, who heard Naidu's special leave petition challenging a September 22 order passed by the high court declining to quash a first information report (FIR) arraigning the ex-chief minister as one of the accused in the scam. The judges delivered two separate judgments. Justice Bose held that previous sanction within the meaning of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (added by 2018 amendment) will have to be obtained after the provision became operational, failing which, an inquiry, enquiry, or investigation against a public servant under the PC Act shall be illegal. Accordingly, he held that Naidu could not have been proceeded against for offences under Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the 1988 act on grounds of non-procurement of prior approval from the concerned authority. However, the State could now apply and obtain an approval order, he clarified. He also ruled that the trial court had jurisdiction to pass the remand order and refused to quash it. "The special judge had the jurisdiction to pass such an order even though the offences under the PC Act could not have been invoked at that stage. A lack of approval in terms of Section 17A of the act would not make the entire remand order non-est," Justice Bose said, adding that Naidu could be proceeded against before the Special Judge for offences under the Indian Penal Code partly allowing Naidu's appeal. Justice Trivedi disagreed with her colleague on the interpretation of Section 17A. She held that this provision could not be made applicable retrospectively. Her conclusion that Section 17A would only apply to amended and newly-inserted offences under the PC Act, which underwent significant amendments in 2018, marked the major point of departure from Justice Bose's ruling. The prior sanction requirement under Section 17A was required to be treated as substantive, and not merely procedural in nature, the judge insisted, before adding that such a substantive amendment could not be made applicable retrospectively to offences contained in provisions like Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) which were deleted in 2018.She also pointed to the legislative intent behind the provision and said, "The cardinal principle of construction is that any statute would have prospective operation unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. In the instant case, the 2018 amendment act by which Section 17A was inserted, was specifically made applicable from July 2018 by the central government. Thus, the intention of the legislature was to make the amendments applicable prospectively from a particular date, and not retrospectively or retroactively. It is required to be presumed that the legislature intended to make Section 17A applicable only to the new offences as amended in 2018, and not to the offences existing prior to this. Any other interpretation may lead to an anomalous situation resulting in absurdity inasmuch as there could not be prior approval for the deleted offences. If the submission of Senior Advocate Harish Salve that Section 17A is retroactive is accepted, then all the pending proceedings of inquiry, enquiry, and investigation, as on July 2018, carried out in respect of offences existing prior to the 2018 amendment would become infructuous, frustrating the very object of the act, which is to combat corruption. The object of Section 17A is to protect honest and innocent public servants from undergoing harassment by the police for recommendations made or decisions taken in discharge of their official functions. It cannot be the objective of Section 17A to give benefit to dishonest or corrupt public servants. If any inquiry, enquiry, or investigation carried out by the police officer in respect of an offence committed by a public servant is held to be non-est or infructuous by making Section 17A retrospectively or retroactively applicable, the same would not only frustrate the object of the PC Act, but also would be counterproductive."The absence of prior approval before conducting an inquiry, enquiry, or investigation into an alleged offence of corruption by a public servant could never be a ground for quashing an FIR registered against the public servant or the proceedings against them, the judge further said, before adding, "More so, when the public servant is also charged with other offences under the Indian...

Supreme Court Delivers Split Verdict On Chandrababu Naidu's Plea , Judges Disagree On Applicability Of S.17A PC Act

Awstika Das

Justice Aniruddha Bose held that sanction under Section 17A was required. Justice Bela Trivedi disagreed.

Tags