The High Court had imposed a stay on an investigation conducted by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged irregularities pertaining to land transactions in Amaravati during the former TDP regime.
The Jagan Mohan Reddy government had initiated the investigation through a government order dated September 26, 2019. A Cabinet Sub Committee was appointed to assess allegations of corruption against members of the previous government, which subsequently uncovered preliminary evidence of certain irregularities. Based on this finding, the state government issued another order to establish a 10-member SIT, led by a Deputy Inspector General of Police-ranked IPS officer. The SIT was tasked with conducting a thorough inquiry into a range of alleged irregularities, with a focus on land transactions within the Amaravati Capital Region during the Chandrababu Naidu administration.
Both of these notifications were halted indefinitely by the high court, prompting the state government to seek relief from the Supreme Court. The bench, composed of justices MR Shah and MM Sundresh, criticized the high court for granting an interim stay prematurely, given that the entire matter was in its early stages.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the high court failed to acknowledge that the state government had already approached the central government, requesting the investigation be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The bench expressed its view that some of the reasoning provided by the high court for the stay might not be relevant, particularly in light of the observation that a new government should not be prevented from reevaluating decisions made by the previous administration.
The case originated from a challenge by the Andhra Pradesh government against a high court order from September 2020, which had suspended government orders endorsing the formation of the SIT to probe alleged land scams in Amaravati during the tenure of the Telugu Desam Party (TDP).
The Supreme Court clarified that the central government was yet to make a decision regarding the matter, and it would have been more appropriate if the high court had allowed all parties to complete their legal submissions before making a determination on the writ petitions.
The Supreme Court declared, “We are setting aside the orders dated September 16, 2020, while making it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The high court is expected to adjudicate and resolve the writ petitions on their merits and in accordance with the law, without being influenced by the observations made in our order.”
The top court further urged the high court to aim for a final resolution of the writ petitions within a three-month timeframe from the receipt of this judgment. The bench concurred with the senior advocate representing the state that the high court had misconstrued the intent of the two government orders.
“The Sub-Committee and the SIT have been established to investigate allegations of corrupt acts and misconduct by the previous government,” the bench concluded.