SC: Political battles not for courts; dismisses Amaravati land pooling plea against Naidu

The Supreme Court on Friday declined to interfere with the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order quashing criminal proceedings against Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu and Minister P. Narayana in connection with alleged irregularities in the Amaravati land pooling scheme.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana said it was not inclined to interfere with the High Court’s decision. The court, however, clarified that the dismissal of the petition would not have a bearing on other related cases, which must be adjudicated on their own merits.

The petition was filed by Alla Rama Krishna Reddy, the original complainant and a former MLA, challenging the High Court’s July 15 order. Senior advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Reddy, argued that the case involved large-scale irregularities affecting land of around 30,000 acres belonging to over 25,000 farmers.

Responding to the submissions, the Bench acknowledged the concerns raised about farmers. “On the larger issue of farmers, we are with you. Whatever they are entitled to, we will protect,” the court observed.

However, the Bench noted that the criminal proceedings had been initiated at the instance of a political rival, and no farmer had come forward in the matter. “Political battles should not be fought in court,” Chief Justice Surya Kant remarked, while disposing of the petition.

The case originated from a First Information Report registered on March 12, 2021, under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complaint by Reddy concerned the land pooling scheme announced through a 2016 government order. The Crime Investigation Department (CID), which investigated the case, named Naidu, Narayana, and others as accused. They were charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the Assigned Lands Act.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court had earlier stayed all proceedings in the case after Naidu and Narayana filed petitions seeking quashing of the FIR. On July 15, the High Court allowed those petitions, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The land pooling scheme was devised as an alternative to compulsory land acquisition for the development of Amaravati as Andhra Pradesh’s capital. Under the scheme, farmers surrendered their agricultural land to the government in exchange for developed residential and commercial plots. For every acre of agricultural land contributed, farmers were to receive 1,000 square yards of residential land and 250 square yards of commercial land.

According to official records, 28,181 landowners from 25 villages contributed 35,215 acres of private agricultural land for the capital project. The scheme was intended to provide landowners with a share in the proposed capital's development rather than a one-time compensation.

The Supreme Court’s decision brings legal closure to the case against Naidu and Narayana specifically, while leaving open the possibility of scrutiny for other matters. The court’s remarks on the larger issue of farmers’ entitlements indicate that any legitimate grievance by landowners would still be entertained.

This case also highlights the broader debate over the use of criminal courts in political disputes. The observation by the Chief Justice — that political battles should not be waged in court — serves as a reminder of the need to keep legal forums focused on substantive justice.

The Supreme Court’s clarification that other cases should be decided on their own merits ensures that the outcome of this petition does not inadvertently set a precedent for unrelated proceedings. The focus now shifts to the implementation of the land pooling scheme and whether the promised benefits to farmers are being delivered.

The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not be used as instruments for political rivalry, while retaining their role in protecting the rights of affected citizens, including farmers whose land was pooled for the Amaravati project.