Ex-CBI director: “Case against Chandrababu Naidu is illegal and should be thrown out”
M. Nageswara Rao, a former acting director of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), thinks that Chandrababu Naidu’s arrest in connection with the suspected Skill Development Corporation fraud was improper and should be quashed.
He claimed that the case against Chandrababu Naidu and his detention was unjustified and should be thrown out in accordance with section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code and/or Article 226 of the Constitution.
On September 9, the Crime Investigation Department (CID) detained Naidu, and a Vijayawada court ordered him held in judicial custody for a period of 14 days.
Naidu’s detention was unlawful, according to Nageswara Rao, who spoke on X. He said that the former chief minister could only be arrested with the governor’s prior consent.
According to the former Indian Police Service (IPS) officer, section 17A of the PC Act, 1988 was added with effect from July 26, 2018, as a result of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which was passed by Parliament.
“Section 17A has two parts, namely: The first part has imposed a total embargo on police officers to inquire about or investigate any alleged crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act where the alleged crime relates to any recommendation made or decision made by such public servant in the course of his official functions or duties, without the prior approval of the competent authority.
This restriction on police officers’ ability to inquire, inquire, or investigate without prior authorisation from a competent authority has nothing to do with whether the alleged offense was committed before or after the effective date of section 17A on 26-7-2018. For further information, see Section 17A’s removal of police officer powers as of 26-7-2018, unless the responsible authority gives its prior consent.
He said that beginning on July 26, 2018, section 17A eliminated police officers’ jurisdiction unless they had received prior consent from a responsible authority.
Section 17A of the PC Act’s second paragraph discusses the authority that has the jurisdiction to provide such prior authorisation. They are: (a) For those who work for the central government, the central government (b) In the case of workers of state governments, the state government in question; (c) In the case of anybody else, the authority with the ability to remove him from his position at the time the alleged offense was committed.
“Granting prior approval of the Governor of AP, who is the competent authority to remove a person from the post of CM, was mandatory before the AP CID Police started the Preliminary Enquiry (PE) or registered the Criminal Case in 2021, as the allegations of corruption and other offenses against Sri Chandrababu Naidu relate to his Chief Ministership during the years 2014 to 2019. The claim that the Governor of AP’s prior consent was not required since Chandrababu Naidu was not mentioned as an accused party in the PE or criminal case is ludicrous and ridiculous. Section 17A DOES NOT deal with the filing of PEs or criminal charges against public employees. The former IPS officer added, “It is about blanket restriction on police officer’s ability to inquiry, probe, or investigate whether or not a case is lodged, etc.
Without the prior consent of the Governor of AP, any inquiry, enquiry, or investigation (including an arrest, etc.) conducted by the IO is null and invalid from the start and cannot be certified or validated ex post facto. As a result, the permission should be obtained BEFORE beginning the investigation. When the CID Police began their inquiry or investigation into Chandrababu Naidu, Sri Biswa Bhushan Harichandan was the governor of Andhra Pradesh.
