SC delivers split verdict

In a setback for TDP Chief Chandrababu Naidu in the alleged Skill Development Corporation scam case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered a split verdict on his plea to quash the case filed against him by the Andhra CID in the skill development scam case.
The split judgment was pronounced by a Special Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and 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) naming the ex-chief minister as one of the accused in the case.
The judges provided two separate judgments, and as they could not reach a consensus, they referred the matter to a larger bench headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud.
Justice Bose opined that previous sanctions within the meaning of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, must be obtained after becoming operational; otherwise, an inquiry or investigation shall be deemed illegal. Consequently, he held that Naidu could not have faced charges under Section 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the 1988 Act due to the absence of prior approval from the concerned authority.
However, Justice Bose clarified that the State government could now apply and obtain the approval order. He also ruled that the trial court had the jurisdiction to pass the remand order and refused to quash it, stating that “a lack of approval would not make the entire remand order void.” On the other hand, Justice Trivedi disagreed with her colleague on the interpretation of Section 17A. She held that this provision could not be applied retrospectively.
According to her, Section 17A, being substantive, would only apply to new offences under the PC Act, which underwent significant amendments in 2018.
The requirement for prior sanction under Section 17A would apply solely to new offences and not to offences existing before the 2018 amendment. Justice Trivedi also highlighted the legislative intent behind the provision, stating, “It cannot be the objective of Section 17A to give any benefit to dishonest public servants. If applied retrospectively, it will frustrate many pending inquiries and investigations.”
Given the divergence in the bench’s interpretation of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the matter will now be referred to a larger bench. Justice Bose announced, “As we have taken different opinions on the interpretation of this section, as also its applicability on the appellant, we refer the matter to the Chief Justice of India for appropriate directions,” concluding the proceedings.