Back
Dismisses Challenge, Upholds Quashing of FIR Against Chandrababu Naidu on Amaravati Land Pooling
In a significant endorsement of the 's judgment, the on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the quashing of a criminal FIR against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and former Minister Ponguru Narayana. The case stemmed from alleged irregularities in the land pooling scheme for the proposed capital of Amaravati.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana refused to entertain the filed by former YSRCP MLA Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, who had lodged the original complaint. The observed that political battles should not be fought in the courtroom, and notably, no affected farmer had come forward with a grievance. The bench clarified that the High Court's order would not impact other related cases, which must be decided on their own merits.
The Amaravati Land Pooling Controversy
The FIR in Crime No.5 of 2021 was registered by the on , based on a complaint by Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, the then MLA of Mangalagiri. The complaint alleged that the then government – led by Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu with Ponguru Narayana as Minister for Municipal Administration – manipulated the land pooling scheme introduced under the Act, 2014.
The scheme, designed to develop a new capital after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, offered farmers developed residential and commercial plots in exchange for pooling their agricultural land. The complaint claimed that by issuing G.O.Ms.No.41 on , the government illegally amended the scheme to benefit certain categories of assigned land, purchasers, and alleged encroachers. This, it was argued, deprived poor and marginalised farmers—many from SC/ST communities—of their lawful entitlements while conferring undue gains on influential individuals close to the ruling dispensation.
The FIR invoked , provisions of the , and .
High Court's Reasoning: Policy Decisions Cannot Be Criminal Acts
The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR under , arguing that the prosecution was a tool of political vendetta. and contended that the acts complained of were legitimate governance decisions – the issuance of a government order under statutory rule-making power – and could not be criminally prosecuted. They highlighted the constitutional genesis of the capital project, including a unanimous resolution of the state legislature, and emphasised that over 25,000 farmers had voluntarily participated in the land pooling scheme.
The High Court, in its comprehensive judgment authored by Justice Y. Lakshmana Rao, agreed. The Court held that the FIR did not disclose the essential ingredients of any against the petitioners. Critically, it ruled that the theory of treating governmental policy decisions as was “constitutionally impermissible, legally incoherent, and profoundly dangerous to democratic governance.”
The judgment noted that G.O.Ms.No.41 was a valid piece of that had never been struck down, and that no motive could be attributed to a legislative act. The Court found multiple statutory bars to prosecution, including and , which shield acts done in in pursuance of those statutes.
Key Judicial Observations
In a passage that captured the essence of the ruling, the High Court declared: “To permit a prosecution founded upon the theory that governance equals conspiracy would be to strike at the foundations of representative democracy and constitutional governance.”
The Court further observed that the FIR was “vitiated by and political vendetta,” noting that no farmer had lodged a complaint even after five years and that the timing of the complaint – after a change in government – pointed to ulterior motives.
On the misuse of the criminal process, the judgment remarked: “Criminal law cannot be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. Courts must ensure that the system of justice serves the cause of truth and the dignity of every person before it.”
Implications and What This Means
The 's dismissal of the SLP effectively puts to rest the criminal proceedings against Naidu and Narayana arising from this particular FIR. The top court's observation that no farmer had come forward underscores the lack of direct victim grievance, a point that weighed heavily in the High Court's decision.
However, the explicitly preserved the right to proceed in other related cases, meaning that the broader allegations of irregularities in the land pooling scheme have not been universally shut down. The decision reinforces the principle that legitimate policy-making and executive action, even when controversial, cannot be criminalised in the absence of specific allegations of individual criminal intent or conduct.
For public officials, this judgment provides robust protection against prosecutions that seek to punish governance decisions under the guise of criminal law. It reaffirms that the remedy for an erroneous government order lies in constitutional challenge, not in a police investigation into motives.
