Justice Jukanti Anilkumar of the Telangana High Court has reserved orders on a significant petition filed by senior IAS officer Y Srilakshmi. The officer seeks to quash a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) case against her, which is connected to alleged quid pro quo investments in companies owned by YSRCP president and former Andhra Pradesh chief minister YS Jagan Mohan Reddy.
Legal Arguments: The Core of the Defence
Appearing for Srilakshmi, senior advocate K Vivek Reddy presented a crucial legal argument. He contended that the prosecution sanction granted against his client covered only offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It did not, he argued, extend to the sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that the CBI has invoked in the case.
Reddy emphasised that a valid and separate sanction is a mandatory requirement under both sets of laws for the prosecution to proceed. He bolstered his position by relying on several rulings from the Supreme Court of India to support this legal standpoint.
CBI's Allegations and Strong Opposition
The CBI, represented by special counsel Srinivas Kapatia, strongly opposed the plea for quashing the case. The agency informed the court that it possesses substantial evidence against the IAS officer. The CBI's case alleges that Srilakshmi misused her official position to extend illegal benefits to Penna Cements.
Penna Cements is owned by Pratap Reddy, identified as a close associate of the late chief minister YS Rajasekhara Reddy. The alleged irregularities, as per the CBI, are multifaceted and significant:
- Irregular land allotments.
- Questionable renewals of mining leases across several districts.
- Granting undue concessions for the construction of a hotel in Hyderabad.
The central allegation is that these favours were part of a quid pro quo arrangement. In return, Pratap Reddy invested approximately ₹68 crore into various companies owned by Jagan Mohan Reddy.
Procedural History and CBI's Counter
The CBI counsel also raised a procedural objection to Srilakshmi's current petition. He pointed out that the officer had previously challenged the orders of the special CBI court but later withdrew her petition after arguments were heard. Given this history, the CBI argued that she should not be permitted to reopen the same issue before the high court.
The court, after hearing detailed submissions from both sides, has reserved its orders. A final decision on whether the CBI case against the senior bureaucrat will continue or be quashed is now awaited.
