Stating that the High Court’s interpretation of the law was fundamentally flawed and contrary to basic legal principles, the Supreme Court has reinstated multiple corruption cases against government officials.
On Thursday, the apex court sharply rebuked the Andhra Pradesh High Court for striking down several corruption FIRs on what it termed an excessively technical basis. A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma overturned the High Court’s decision and revived FIRs lodged by the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Supreme Court said that the High Court’s reasoning amounted to a “travesty of justice,” observing that corruption investigations were prematurely halted solely because of objections over jurisdiction. If the FIRs were to be quashed on a technicality, the High Court was obligated to clarify which authority actually had jurisdiction, the Bench remarked.
The dispute stemmed from the 2014 bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh and the creation of Telangana. Before the split, a 2003 government order had designated several ACB offices, including the Central Investigation Unit, as police stations with jurisdiction across the State. After bifurcation, the ACB headquarters moved from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, and between 2016 and 2020, a series of FIRs were registered there.
Accused persons challenged these FIRs, arguing that no fresh notification had declared the Vijayawada ACB office a police station under Section 2(s) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court accepted this position and struck down the FIRs, ruling that a 2022 government order could not operate retrospectively.
The Supreme Court disagreed entirely. It held that laws and government orders in force before bifurcation continued under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, unless expressly amended or repealed. Therefore, the 2003 notification remained valid, and no separate act of adoption was necessary.
The Court also rejected the High Court’s insistence that such declarations must be published in the Official Gazette, calling this view overly formalistic and inconsistent with the statutory framework. It added that the 2022 order merely clarified existing jurisdiction and did not confer any new powers, so its effect could not be denied for earlier FIRs.
The Bench remarked that the High Court appeared determined to quash the cases, which resulted in years of delay in anti-corruption investigations.
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court restored the FIRs, directed that investigations be completed promptly, and asked that final reports be filed within six months. It also restrained the High Court from entertaining further challenges to these FIRs on the same jurisdictional grounds, while ensuring that the accused are protected from coercive action during the investigation phase, provided they cooperate with the probe.
