Supreme Court reserves verdict on Chandrababu Naidu Plea, denies interim relief

Chandrababu Naidu, who has been in custody for nearly 40 days, has requested interim bail in a court hearing. Naidu's plea for interim bail is based on the argument that if the court doesn't accept his main petition, he may return to custody.

In his primary petition, Naidu contends that his arrest was unlawful because the state's Crime Investigation Department (CID) did not obtain prior approval from the competent authority under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This section prohibits agencies from investigating public servants on corruption charges without government approval.

Legal arguments in Court

During the court proceedings, Harish Salve, Naidu's counsel, asserted that the investigating agency couldn't inquire into an accused public servant without prior approval, as it would undermine the protection granted under Section 17A. Salve cited past Supreme Court judgments to support this claim.

Naidu alleges political vendetta by the current Andhra Pradesh government, claiming that multiple cases have been filed against him to influence his party's performance in the upcoming state assembly polls.

ALSO READ: IMD issues 'orange' alert for heavy rain and snowfall in J-K, Ladakh, and Himachal Pradesh

The case against Naidu pertains to the alleged diversion of government funds meant for a skill development project. This diversion was allegedly carried out through fraudulent invoices and shell companies, which did not correspond to the actual delivery of services.

Legal timeline

Naidu moved the Supreme Court on September 23 after the Andhra Pradesh High Court refused to set aside the first information report (FIR) against him. The High Court ruled that Section 17A protection didn't apply as the actions in question were unrelated to his official duties as chief minister. Naidu has raised concerns about the 21-month delay in naming him in the FIR, alleging that the Andhra Pradesh CID was acting to damage his party's prospects in the upcoming state election, characterizing it as "regime revenge."

ALSO READ: Supreme Court questions validity of PIL challenging Einstein's 'E = mc²'