Andhra HC quashes FIR against ex-CM Naidu in land pooling case, invokes Gita, Cinderella

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed a criminal case against former chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu and former minister Ponguru Narayana related to alleged irregularities in the Amaravati land pooling scheme. The court held that policy decisions of a previous government cannot be turned into criminal cases by a successive government.

Justice Y Lakshmana Rao, on July 15, observed the “irony of political rivals accusing each other of criminality only after losing office” and compared the change of government to the change of seasons, “each ushering in a fresh crop of FIRs against the outgoing dispensation”. The judgment drew from the Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsha, philosopher John Locke, and the fairy tale Cinderella, noting that government orders transform like Cinderella’s carriage into a pumpkin at midnight.

The FIR was registered by the Andhra Pradesh CID in March 2021 on a complaint by then Mangalagiri MLA Alla Ramakrishna Reddy, a member of the ruling YSR Congress Party. It alleged that the previous Telugu Desam Party government illegally issued a government order in February 2016 extending land pooling benefits to certain assigned lands, causing losses to poor landholders and violations of the SC/ST Atrocities Act and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands Act.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Naidu, argued that issuing a valid government order cannot be prosecuted because a new government disagrees with it. The court agreed, stating that the FIR disclosed no cognisable offence and was politically motivated. The judgment opened with a verse from the Mahabharata’s Shanti Parva, describing justice as the highest dharma, and quoted Kalidasa: “The king’s happiness lies in the happiness of his subjects.”

The land pooling scheme was part of building the new capital Amaravati after the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh in 2014. Under it, farmers exchanged agricultural land for residential and commercial plots. The court’s decision underscores that policy differences between governments should not be criminalised.