The Supreme Court on Wednesday listed for October 3 hearing the special leave petition filed by former Andhra Pradesh chief minister N. Chandrababu Naidu for quashing the FIR relating to alleged corruption and loss of over Rs 370 crore to the state exchequer registered against him by the state anti-corruption bureau (ACB).

The apex court, however, made it clear that it was not passing any restraining order against the trial judge before whom the ACB had filed an application for custodial interrogation of Naidu.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud briefly heard the matter as a special case after senior advocate Sidharth Luthra rushed to the CJI court for an urgent hearing after one of the judges Justice S.V.N. Bhatti recused from the hearing.

Earlier, the matter was listed on Wednesday before a bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice S.V. N. Bhatti. However, as soon as the matter came up for hearing, Justice Khanna informed the counsels appearing in the matter that Justice Bhatti wanted to recuse from the case. Justice Bhatti is a judge hailing from Andhra Pradesh.

Justice Khanna offered to list the matter for next week. However, Luthra, appearing for Naidu, wanted an urgent listing and sought permission to mention the matter before the CJI who was sitting in a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra. The CJI agreed to a brief hearing.

During the hearing, Luthra complained that the FIR was politically motivated and registered in 2021 but Naidu was arrested on September 8 this year as the elections are around the corner in the state. The senior counsel complained that “FIR after FIR” is being registered against Naidu by the Jagan Mohan Reddy government to settle political scores and embarrass him before the electorate.

Luthra further argued that the mandatory sanction required from the state governor under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not obtained by the ACB while arresting Naidu.

Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for the state government, however, disputed the arguments. Kumar submitted that several hundreds of crores of rupees were misappropriated and hence the matter should be left for the trial court with regard to the allegations.

When Luthra pleaded that the state should not be allowed to press for police custody of Naidu, as the apex court was scheduled to hear the petition on October 3, the CJI declined the plea.