ANDHRA PRADESH: Supreme Court Slams AP High Court Ruling
The Supreme Court of India vented its anger, not holding back from criticizing a decision made by the Andhra Pradesh High Court by which the local ACB cases were cancelled without the knowledge of the investigating officers.
Without doing much beating around the bush, Justice Sundaresh questioned how it was possible to dismiss complaints without even looking at the supporting materials.
It seems the legal battle will get heated soon, as notices have been sent to respondents.
Questioning the High Court’s Call
The High Court had ruled that the Vijayawada unit isn’t a recognized police station, leading to the sudden dismissal of multiple cases.
Justice Sundaresh pushed back hard: What laws were these cases built on? How can you throw them out without checking the investigation’s substance?
He zeroed in on probes into disproportionate assets, wondering if such blanket dismissals undermine anti-corruption work.
Keeping Investigations Alive
In a bold move, the Supreme Court halted the High Court’s ruling from impacting other cases.
For 11 specific FIRs, it issued interim orders, allowing investigators to press forward and file charge sheets without delay. This step ensures that ongoing probes don’t get derailed by procedural disputes.
State’s Argument: History Matters
Senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Guntur Pramod laid out a compelling case, noting the Vijayawada unit’s roots in Hyderabad before the 2014 state split.
They argued that the Bifurcation Act keeps pre-split laws intact, meaning the unit’s statewide authority didn’t need a new stamp of approval in Vijayawada.
They pointed to Supreme Court rulings on Punjab and Bihar splits to back their stance.
Did the High Court Miss the Mark?
The state’s lawyers accused the High Court of overlooking these legal foundations, wrongly assuming the unit’s powers fizzled out after moving from Hyderabad.
This misstep, they warned, could ripple through anti-corruption efforts. The Supreme Court, clearly swayed, postponed the next hearing for six weeks to dig deeper.