NEW DELHI: The Andhra Pradesh government has challenged the high court order to release him on bail to serve the political interests of the state’s ruling party ahead of the state elections expected to be held in April-May this year, former chief minister and Telugu Desam Party (TDP) chief N Chandrababu Naidu has told the Supreme Court in an affidavit filed on February 7.
“The petitioner (AP government) has instituted and is pursuing the present proceedings with the sole aim of harming its political rival and this is demonstrable from the fact that the State has always insisted upon a condition of bail that the respondent (Naidu) should not engage in rallies/public meetings,” Naidu said in his affidavit to counter the state government’s petition against his release of bail in the skill development corporation scam case.
A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal on Monday adjourned the hearing of the matter to February 26.
Naidu is represented by senior advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra while the Andhra Pradesh government is represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar with advocate Mahfooz A Nazki.
Chandrababu Naidu was arrested on September 9 last year for allegedly misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation when he was the chief minister in 2015, causing a purported loss of ₹371 crore to the state exchequer. Naidu has denied the allegations.
The Andhra Pradesh high court, which had ordered his release on interim medical bail on 31 October, formalised his release under regular bail on November 20. The high court withdrew bail conditions that barred Naidu from participating in public rallies and meetings but continued to prohibit him from making public statements or speaking to the media about the case.
Naidu asked the top court to not only reject the state’s appeal but also remove the restrictions imposed on him by the high court.
“The condition is clearly intended to be a muzzle that casts a shadow on the motive underlying the actions of the state… It may be that where a person is charged with political or electoral offences, or is apprehended to imperil public order, in rare cases such a condition may be imposed. Public speaking is an invaluable constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a) and can only be curtailed if the conditions of Article 19(2) are fulfilled – which is admittedly not the case.”
In a reply filed to the state government’s appeal challenging the bail order of November 20, 2023 granted to the former Andhra Pradesh chief minister in the ₹371 crore skill development scam, Naidu said that such a bail condition violates his fundamental right to free speech and is not justified in the facts of the present case where the FIR against him is lodged after a delay of 22 months, with charge sheet yet to be filed and other co-accused already released on bail.
Naidu said, “The petitioner (AP government) has instituted and is pursuing the present proceedings with the sole aim of harming its political rival and this is demonstrable from the fact that the State has always insisted upon a condition of bail that the respondent (Naidu) should not engage in rallies/public meetings.”
A bench of justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal adjourned the hearing of the matter to February 26 to consider the response filed by Naidu and hear arguments of the state. Naidu is represented by senior advocates Harish Salve and Siddharth Luthra while the state is represented by senior advocate Ranjit Kumar with advocate Mahfooz A Nazki.
The reply filed on February 7 further stated, “The condition is clearly intended to be a muzzle that casts a shadow on the motive underlying the actions of the state…. It may be that where a person is charged with political or electoral offences, or is apprehended to imperil public order, in rare cases such a condition may be imposed. Public speaking is a invaluable constitutional right under Article 19(1)(a) and can only be curtailed if the conditions of Article 19(2) are fulfilled – which is admittedly not the case.”
Naidu said the extent of political vendetta and the relentless efforts by the state government to somehow him of his liberty to gain a political advantage for the YSRCP is further evidenced by the fact that two FIRs were lodged after the passing of the impugned order (November 20) on “absolutely baseless allegations.”
The Supreme Court granted him an arrest shield in the FibreNet case. In the second, he was granted anticipatory bail by the high court. An appeal against this verdict was dismissed by the Supreme Court on January 29.