Court holds criminalizing governance decisions as abuse of process; emphasizes statutory bar under APCRDA Act and absence of cognizable offence in landmark judgment.
In a significant judgment delivered on July 15, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the FIR registered as Crime No.5 of 2021 against former Chief Minister Nara Chandrababu Naidu and former Minister for Municipal Administration and Urban Development, Ponguru Narayana. The FIR accused them of criminal conspiracy, cheating, and breach of trust concerning the Land Pooling Scheme under the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 (APCRDA Act), specifically targeting G.O.Ms.No.41 dated 17.02.2016.
The case arose from allegations that these leaders, along with others, misused statutory powers to manipulate land acquisition policies, allegedly cheating farmers, including Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) members, by incorporating assigned lands into the pooling scheme unlawfully. It was contended that this was done with mala fide intent to benefit close associates and cause loss to vulnerable farmers.
However, after exhaustive hearings and consideration of voluminous evidence and legal submissions, the High Court found the FIR to be fundamentally flawed and an abuse of the criminal process, motivated by political vendetta. The complaint was filed five years after the issuance of the government order, and notably, no aggrieved farmer or landowner had approached any forum with grievances during this period. The court observed that the complaint was lodged by a sitting MLA belonging to the then ruling party, underscoring the political context.
The court meticulously analyzed the statutory framework, including the APCRDA Act and the Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977. It held that Section 146 of the APCRDA Act explicitly bars any suit, prosecution, or proceeding against the government or its officials for acts done under or in pursuance of the Act or rules made thereunder. Similarly, Section 8 of the Assigned Lands Act provides immunity for acts done in good faith. The petitioners’ actions, including the issuance of G.O.Ms.No.41, fell squarely within these statutory protections.
Furthermore, the court emphasized that acts done in the lawful exercise of statutory and constitutional powers, especially those endorsed by a unanimous resolution of the State Legislature and backed by an extensive Expert Committee report, cannot be criminalized. The issuance of government orders in the exercise of delegated legislative power is an act of governance and not a criminal offence. The court held that criminal prosecution for governance decisions undermines constitutional principles and the doctrine of separation of powers.
The court also noted the absence of essential ingredients for the offences alleged under Sections 166, 167, 217, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 3(1)(f) and 3(1)(g) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. There was no specific allegation of wrongful dispossession or caste-based intent. The FIR failed to disclose any cognizable offence against the petitioners individually and was based on broad, vague allegations.
The judgment cautions against the misuse of the criminal law machinery for settling political scores and underscores the courts’ role in preventing harassment of individuals through frivolous or mala fide prosecutions. The court invoked the four-fold test from Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor to quash the FIR, finding the petitioners’ defense material impeccable and the continuation of trial an abuse of process.
This landmark judgment reinforces the principle that policy decisions and governance acts, even if controversial or disputed, do not constitute criminal acts unless specific, cogent evidence of illegality or mala fide intent is established. It affirms statutory protections for public servants acting in good faith and highlights the importance of safeguarding the rule of law against political misuse.
Bottom line:-
Abuse of criminal law to target political adversaries and criminalize governance decisions must be curtailed to uphold democracy and the rule of law.
Statutory provision(s):
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482; Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority Act, 2014 Section 146; Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 166, 167, 217, 120-B, 34, 35, 36, 37; Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g); Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 Sections 7, 8.
[End of Report]
Nara Chandra Babu Naidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2950678
