The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking transfer of cases registered by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) against Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for an independent and fair investigation.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Lisa Gill adjourned to November 10 the hearing on the PIL filed by Kotti Balagangadhar Tilak. The PIL was filed in 2024 after the change of government. The petitioner approached the Court anticipating that the change in power could affect the investigations and lead to the cases being closed.
The petition challenged the closure of several cases, which the petitioner says were treated as “mistakes of fact” while the PIL was pending. The cases concern allegations relating to the transfer of assigned lands belonging to members of SC/ST communities; irregularities in the award of an optical-fibre network tender; the setting up of skill development centres; land acquisition for the Inner Ring Road; excise-policy decisions; and the framing and implementation of the free-sand policy. The petitioner also filed an interlocutory petition seeking directions to the Vijayawada ACB Court to ensure that documents and electronic devices seized during investigations were not returned to the concerned individuals.
Senior Counsel Ranjith, appearing for the petitioner, argued that the complainants in these cases are government officials and that, with Chandrababu Naidu in power, they have not come forward to challenge the closure reports. He submitted that this leaves the petitioner to seek the Court’s intervention to ensure that the cases receive independent scrutiny.
According to the case-status chart filed in the matter, closure reports have been filed and accepted in the cases, while related proceedings seeking copies of reports or challenging closures remain pending. The chart also records a protest petition filed by a complainant in one assigned-land case, alleging pressure from CID-SIT officials to provide a no-objection certificate for closure.
Senior Counsel Ranjith argued that the High Court, as a constitutional court, has the authority to order an inquiry where the circumstances warrant it, including after an acquittal, or to transfer an investigation to the CBI to ensure fairness.
The petitioner’s case is that the closure of the reports does not, by itself, prevent the Court from considering whether an independent investigation is required. During the hearing last month, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the State government and CID, urged the court to dismiss the PIL.
He had submitted that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had filed final reports before the Vijayawada Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court in cases against Chandrababu Naidu, stating that sufficient evidence was not available to proceed. He informed the High Court that the ACB Court had considered the reports and ordered closure of the cases.
Rohatgi further informed the court that some individuals had challenged the closure orders by filing revision petitions before the High Court. In view of these developments, he argued that nothing remained to be examined in the PIL and urged the court to dismiss it as infructuous.
