Live
- PM Modi visits Advani's residence to wish him on birthday, shares special moment
- Sun-Dried Cotton to Be Taken to CCI Purchase Centers, Avoid Middlemen - Collector
- Survey Process Requires Public Cooperation - Collector Badavath Santosh
- Distribution of Maize Seeds to Farmers at Agricultural Research Center
- Education with Human Values Must be Provided to Students - Telangana State Higher Education Council Chairman Prof. V. Balakista Reddy
- Review on Employment Guarantee Works and Nursery Management
- Nepal's disasters cause huge loss in late September
- Congress not finished but BJP survives on backs of Nitish, Chandrababu: Nana Patole
- Calcutta High Court advises Bengal government to fix guidelines for demonstration sites
- 25 per cent of Indians affected by Varicose Veins, say health experts
Section 17A triggers curiosity among legal professionals
- The high profile case of former Chief Minister and TDP national president N Chandrababu Naidu draws the attention of legal fraternity
- Young advocates show keen interest in understanding Section 17A in deeper perspective
- They opine that handling such challenging cases will add value to their profession
Visakhapatnam: Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the high profile case of former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu, is triggering an unusual interest among the legal professionals, especially among the young law graduates entering the legal field.
What is the section all about? What does it say? What are the previous judgments based on this section? Such questions and related topics have increased curiosity among advocates in recent weeks. The arguments of Section 17A in Naidu’s case that started in the ACB court have now reached the Supreme Court. Advocates supporting Naidu are arguing that this section is applicable in the “Skill Development Corporation scam” case registered against Naidu, while advocates for the government are strongly arguing that it is not applicable.
Even senior advocates in the legal profession are paying a rapt attention to the arguments and following the case in detail.
Section 17A was introduced by an amendment with effect from July 26, 2018. The provision stipulates a mandatory requirement for a police officer to seek prior approval from the competent authority for conducting any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).
However, the State government has argued that Naidu’s petition for quashing the FIR be rejected as the question about the applicability of section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not arise as the provision came into force in July 2018, while the CBI began probing the case in 2017. At 73, Naidu was arrested for allegedly misappropriating funds from the Skill Development Corporation when he was the Chief Minister in 2015, causing a purported loss of over Rs 370 crore to the State exchequer. He was arrested on September 9 and has been behind the bars since then.
Explaining about the Section 17A, president of Visakhapatnam Bar Association Chintapalli Rambabu, says, “Section 17 is a very deep section. Apparently, even several senior lawyers are not aware of this section in detail. But after Naidu’s case came to the fore, the focus and discussions surrounding Section 17A took a new turn. The way arguments are continuing for hours in the Supreme Court in Naidu’s case, it reflects the intensity of the section, drawing the attention of not just the beginners in the profession but also from various quarters across the country.”
Sharing her views, Theegala Vaishnavi, an MBA and BL graduate, says, “By the time I completed the registration process in the High Court as an advocate, heated discussions were witnessed in Naidu’s case. It is interesting to know what judgments have been passed under this section in the past. For fresh graduates like me, the section is certainly a topic to be researched to gain knowledge in the legal aspects.”
Like Vaishnavi, some of the BL graduates echo similar opinions about Section 17A and stated that they would like to handle such challenging cases in future.
