"Travesty of justice": Supreme Court on AP High Court closing corruption cases on hyper-technical grounds

The Supreme Court on Thursday strongly criticised the Andhra Pradesh High Court for quashing a batch of corruption cases on what it called a “hyper-technical approach” [The Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Anti-Corruption Bureau, A.P. & Anr vs. Dayam Peda Ranga Rao Etc.]. .A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the High Court's order and revived multiple first information reports (FIRs) registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) under the Prevention of Corruption Act against several public officials. While doing so, it described the High Court's approach as a “travesty of justice”, noting that corruption probes had been “nipped in the bud” solely on jurisdictional objections."The approach of the High Court is nothing but a travesty of justice. If, on a hyper-technical ground, the FIRs are quashed, the High Court is duty-bound to lay down the law with respect to the jurisdiction that otherwise exists," the Court noted. .The controversy traces back to the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh in 2014 which led to the creation of Telangana. Prior to bifurcation, a 2003 government order had declared various ACB offices, including the Central Investigation Unit, as police stations with Statewide jurisdiction.After bifurcation, the ACB headquarters shifted from Hyderabad to Vijayawada. Between 2016 and 2020, several FIRs under the Prevention of Corruption Act were registered by the ACB’s Central Investigation Unit at Vijayawada.The accused persons challenged these FIRs before the High Court, arguing that there was no specific notification post-bifurcation declaring the Vijayawada ACB office as a police station under Section 2(s) of the Criminal Procedural Code (CrPC). Accepting this argument, Justice Harinath N quashed all FIRs, holding that the 2022 government order clarifying the position could not apply retrospectively.Aggrieved by the High Court's reasoning, the Joint Director (Rayalaseema), Andhra Pradesh Anti-Corruption Bureau appealed before the Supreme Court. .The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach to be fundamentally flawed. At the outset, it noted that the High Court had quashed FIRs purely on jurisdictional objections without indicating which authority would otherwise have jurisdiction, thereby leaving investigations in limbo.The bench explained that under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, all existing laws, including government orders and notifications having the force of law, continued to operate unless altered, repealed or amended.It held that the 2003 government order declaring ACB offices as police stations continued to apply even after bifurcation and that no separate act of “adoption” was required.A key finding of the High Court was that a declaration under Section 2(s) of the CrPC had to be published in the Official Gazette, failing which the FIRs lacked jurisdiction. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning in strong terms.The bench said the High Court had elevated form over substance and ignored the statutory scheme.“The reasoning of the High Court, that a declaration by way of a notification has to be published in the Official Gazette for due compliance of Section 2(s) of the CrPC, 1973, is, to say the least, unacceptable. One has to see the substance and due compliance, in spirit,” it said. The top court also rejected the High Court’s view that the 2022 government order clarifying the status of the Vijayawada ACB unit could not apply to earlier FIRs.The Court explained that the 2022 order was only clarificatory in nature and did not create any new jurisdiction."The finding that the subsequent clarificatory Government Order of 2022 will not have an effect on the FIRs registered, is totally untenable and against the basic canons of law," the bench noted. It quipped that the High Court had gone out of its way to quash the FIRs, resulting in years of delay in corruption investigations.“In our considered view, the High Court took undue pains to ensure that the FIRs are quashed. As a consequence, we are dealing with a situation where years have lapsed without further progress on the registered FIRs,” it said. .The Court ultimately allowed the appeals, restored the FIRs and set aside the High Court's judgement in its entirety. It directed that investigations should proceed expeditiously and that final reports be filed within six months. At the same time, it protected the accused from coercive action during the pendency of investigation, directing them to cooperate with the probe.Crucially, the Court barred the Andhra Pradesh High Court from entertaining any further challenges to these FIRs on the same jurisdictional ground..The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocates Sidharth Luthra and Siddharth Aggarwal, along with advocates Prerna Singh, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Rajni Gupta, Vishwajeet Singh, Karl P Rustomkhan and Parv Arora..The respondents were represented by advocates Veerla Satheesh Kumar, V Elangovan, Anu Gupta, Sriram Parakkat, Bhushan Mahendra Oza, Nidhi Mittal, Suresh Babu, Navin Suresh, CK Sasi, KK Geetha and Meena K Poulose..[Read Judgment].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.