CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Split Verdict On The Interpretation And Applicability Of Section 17A Of The Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988: Supreme Court Refers To Larger Bench

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has referred the case involving former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu to a larger bench. This decision comes after a bench comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Bela M. Trivedi delivered a split verdict on the interpretation and applicability of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The case, arising out of a petition for special leave to appeal, centers around allegations of corruption and misappropriation of government funds against Naidu. A key point of contention is the interpretation of Section 17A, introduced by the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which prohibits any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation into offences alleged against a public servant without prior approval, where the offences are related to decisions or recommendations made in their official capacity.

Justice Aniruddha Bose, in his judgment, highlighted the complexities surrounding the retrospective or prospective applicability of Section 17A. “The key issue centers around whether Section 17A applies retrospectively or prospectively,” Justice Bose noted, emphasizing the need for clarity on this significant legal point.

On the other hand, Justice Bela M. Trivedi opined that Section 17A should be viewed as a substantive provision applying prospectively to offences defined post-amendment and not to repealed offences. “The majority opinion suggests Section 17A is substantive, applying prospectively to offences defined post-amendment,” Justice Trivedi observed.

The divergence in opinions led to the referral of the matter to a larger bench for a definitive resolution. The case has garnered significant attention, given its implications for the interpretation of anti-corruption laws in India, particularly concerning high-profile public servants.

The Supreme Court’s decision to refer the matter to a larger bench reflects the complexity and significance of the legal questions involved. The final outcome of this case is eagerly awaited, as it is expected to set a precedent for how Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act is applied in future cases involving allegations of corruption against public servants.

Date of Decision : 16 Jan 2023

NARA CHANDRABABU NAIDU VS THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

 

Latest Legal News