Can prior sanction be used to defeat purpose of anti-corruption law, SC asks Naidu

Supreme Court tells ex-AP CM Naidu's lawyer that Section 17A of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be interpreted to defeat its objective. Salve argued that no sanction was received before initiating prosecution against Naidu. He said the arrest was illegal and his fundamental right was violated. Luthra said the FIR was barred by Section 17A. The case involves alleged misappropriation of funds for skill development institutions. SC to decide if Naidu's plea to quash FIR should be allowed.

The Supreme Court on Monday told former Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu’s lawyer that Section 17A, which mandates prior sanction for investigation, under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be interpreted to defeat the very objective of the statute.

Responding to the oral observation by a Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi, senior advocate Harish Salve, for Mr. Naidu, responded that Section 17A was a protection tailored for public servants against regime revenge.

Mr. Salve and senior advocate Siddharth Luthra argued that no sanction was received under Section 17A before suddenly initiating prosecution against Mr. Naidu by registering an FIR, 21 months ago, in the skill development scam case.

The counsel said the fundamental right of the TDP leader was violated. His arrest was illegal. Mr. Salve quoted a recent judgment of the apex court which said a remand order could be set aside if the arrest was illegally made.

“Both the initiation of the enquiry and the registration of the FIR is non est as both have been initiated and investigation has continued till date without the mandatory approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was introduced in July 2018,” Mr. Salve argued the politician’s plea to quash the FIR.

He said the “very registration of the FIR was barred by Section 17A as it related to official acts of public servants… The FIR being barred under Section 17A, the arrest, remand and consequent actions must fall”.

The provision came into force on July 26, 2018. The enquiry into the case was initiated in 2021 on a complaint dated September 7, 2021 and FIR was registered in December 2021.