[YSR Congress v TDP] State can undertake fact-finding exercise, form SIT to probe corruption by previous government: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday set aside an Andhra Pradesh High Court order which stayed a Special Investigation Team (SIT) probe order by the State government into allegations of corruption against members of the former government including Telugu Desam Party (TDP) leader, Varla Ramaiah. [State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr vs Varla Ramaiah, Etc].A Bench of Justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh held,"State is justified in saying that the High Court has misunderstood the two GOs. The same cannot be said to be overturning the decision of the previous government...High Court was not required to stay when the matter was at a premature stage. We thus set aside the High Court order...High Court should have taken note of State saying that CBI and ED can probe the case.".The Court was hearing an appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh against an Andhra Pradesh High Court order which had stayed the SIT and constitution of a fact-finding committee into allegations of corruption against members of the previous government..The issues before the Court were whether a State has the power to:(1) Appoint a committee to undertake a fact-finding exercise regarding allegations of corruption by various members of the previous government when in office, and thereafter, (2) Constitute a SIT to carry out an investigation in relation to the same..The State government led by Chief Minister YS Jaganmohan Reddy had issued two government orders constituting the SIT and ordering a probe against the TDP leaders. However, the High Court has stayed the operation of both these GOs on the ground that: (a) These GOs are vitiated by virtue of bias, since there exists political rivalry between the present government and the erstwhile government; (b) The Executive does not have the power to review the actions of previous governments and conduct such an investigation..The head of the SIT had written to the State government in March 2020 stating that the matter had widespread ramifications, and therefore, was required to be handed over to a central agency such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).Accordingly, the State had filed application in the High Court to implead the CBI and the Enforcement Directorate (ED). However, the same was dismissed by the High Court..In its appeal before the apex court, the State government had submitted that the High Court’s interference with the constitution of the SIT is a blatant violation of the principle of separation of powers."The State is vested with a right to conduct investigations into legitimate and commonly known allegations of corruption," the State contended..The apex court opined that the High Court ought not to have granted an interim stay when it was not required not at the 'premature nascent stage'."The Central Government is yet to take a call on the letter and the consent given by the first petitioner (now appellant). It would have been better, had the High Court permitted the parties to complete the pleadings, and thereafter, decided the writ petitions one way or the other by affording ample opportunity to the parties before it.".Senior Advocate S Niranjan Reddy appeared for the Andhra Pradesh government. Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave appeared for the original writ petitioners.[Read judgment]