Amaravati, November 5, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday adjourned to November 10 the hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking transfer of cases registered by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) against Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for an independent and fair probe.
A bench headed by Chief Justice Lisa Gill adjourned the matter on the PIL filed by Kotti Balagangadhar Tilak in 2024, following the change of government in the state. The petitioner had approached the court expressing apprehension that the change in power could affect the investigations and lead to the closure of cases.
The petition challenges the closure of several cases, which the petitioner says were classified as “mistakes of fact” while the PIL was pending. These relate to alleged irregularities involving the transfer of assigned lands belonging to SC/ST communities, an optical-fibre network tender, skill development centres, land acquisition for the Inner Ring Road, excise-policy decisions and the free-sand policy.
The petitioner has also filed an interlocutory application seeking directions to the Vijayawada ACB Court to ensure that documents and electronic devices seized during investigations are not returned to the concerned individuals.
Senior Counsel Ranjith, appearing for the petitioner, argued that government officials were the complainants in these cases and had not come forward to challenge the closure reports since Naidu was in power. He submitted that the petitioner had therefore sought the court’s intervention to ensure independent scrutiny.
According to a case-status chart filed in the matter, closure reports had been submitted and accepted in the cases, while related proceedings seeking copies of reports or challenging the closures remained pending. The chart also records a protest petition by a complainant in an assigned-land case, alleging that CID-SIT officials pressured the complainant to issue a no-objection certificate for closure.
Ranjith argued that the High Court, as a constitutional court, had the authority to order an inquiry where circumstances warranted it, including after an acquittal, or transfer an investigation to the CBI to ensure fairness. He maintained that acceptance of closure reports did not, by itself, prevent the court from examining whether an independent probe was required.
During the previous hearing last month, senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state government and CID, had urged the court to dismiss the PIL. He submitted that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had filed final reports before the Vijayawada Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court, stating that there was insufficient evidence to proceed against Naidu.
Rohatgi informed the court that the ACB Court had considered the reports and ordered closure of the cases. He also pointed out that some individuals had challenged the closure orders through revision petitions before the High Court. On this basis, he argued that nothing remained to be examined in the PIL and sought its dismissal as infructuous.
FOLLOW NOW
