Live
- NDA alliance jubilant after Modi, Shah visit
- Vote for TDP means end of welfare schemes: Jagan
- PM Modi attacks Jagan govt on graft
- OFM signs contract with ICG
- Govt jr colleges to hold remedial classes
- Hyderabad students put up a good show in ICSE, ISC exams
- Malkajgiri Parliamentary Constituency: Ahead of polls, RWAs tap party bosses for redressal of long-pending problems
- Alliance formed for public welfare: TDP leader Abdul
- Bandi Praja Sangrama Yatra inspired 'En Mann En Makkal'- TN BJP chief A Annamalai
- Politics of threats no longer exist: MLA Mekapati
SC to continue hearing today
- Bench says it will interpret Section 17A of PC Act in a manner that doesn’t defeat the purpose of law, which is prevention of corruption
- The counsel for Naidu is contending that prior permission of Governor as per Section 17A was not obtained by the state govt from competent authority while taking action against former CM for his actions taken as a public servant
New Delhi: The Supreme Court Monday told former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh N Chandrababu Naidu, arrested in the Skill Development Corporation case, his contention of mandatory prior approval before conducting an inquiry in a corruption case will be viewed in a way that the object of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not get defeated.
Section 17A was introduced by an amendment with effect from July 26, 2018 and the provision stipulates a mandatory requirement for a police officer to seek prior approval from the competent authority for conducting any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
“While interpreting Section 17A, we have to see that the very object of the Act to counter corruption does not get defeated. We cannot adopt an interpretation which will frustrate the objective of the Act,” a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M Trivedi said.
The remarks by the top court came after senior advocate Harish Salve, appearing with lawyer Siddharth Luthra for the TDP leader, submitted that Section 17A was inserted by Parliament to keep a check on harassment of a public servant, who has taken a decision while discharging his official duty. The top court is hearing Naidu’s plea challenging the High Court order refusing to quash the FIR against him in the Skill Development Corporation case.
During the hearing, which continued for nearly two hours, Salve said section 17A of the PC Act, in fact, strengthens the law as it allows a public servant to work freely without any fear of harassment.
He submitted the inquiry against Naidu commenced in 2021 and hence Section 17A of the PC Act will be applicable to the case, and refuted the claim of the state government that the probe commenced before the 2018 amendment came into force. The court posted the matter for further arguments Tuesday, October 10.
