In a Special Leave Petition filed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in the Supreme Court of India, the Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Pankaj Mithal has passed an interim order issuing notice to the respondents and permitting the ongoing investigations to continue unhindered. The Bench has further clarified that the interim order shall not be treated as a precedent in any future matters, preserving judicial propriety.
The SLP, filed predominantly by the Joint Director and Inspector of Police, CIU, ACB, Vijayawada, seeks to overturn the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s judgment and final order dated 1 August 2025. The decision had allowed several criminal petitions filed by respondents, resulting in the quashing of FIRs registered by the Central Investigation Unit (CIU), Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Vijayawada, against individuals accused of possessing disproportionate assets running into crores of rupees.
The FIRs in question, registered between 2016 and 2020, allege serious corruption involving disproportionate assets far exceeding the known sources of income of the accused officials. The Joint Director, CIU, ACB Hyderabad, was officially declared a police station by the Government of Andhra Pradesh through Government Order (G.O.Ms.) No. 268 dated September 12, 2003, with jurisdiction over the entire undivided Andhra Pradesh state.
Following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh into Telangana and Andhra Pradesh on June 2, 2014, as governed by the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the offices (including the CIU, ACB) were shifted from Hyderabad to Vijayawada. The Government of Andhra Pradesh maintains that G.O.Ms. No. 268 remained valid post-bifurcation and that the office continued to function as a police station for the successor state.
Despite this, the Andhra Pradesh High Court quashed the FIRs on the technical ground that the CIU, ACB, Vijayawada, had not been properly notified as a police station on the relevant dates, thereby invalidating the FIRs.
The petitioners argue that the High Court’s approach ignored legislative intent and binding Supreme Court rulings, which endorse the continuity of laws and administrative orders post-reorganisation unless officially repealed or altered. Moreover, the government had issued clarificatory circulars expressly affirming the continuation of laws declared in the undivided Andhra Pradesh.
The Supreme Court will now examine the maintainability and merits of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Andhra Pradesh government. The case will address the legality of the High Court’s interference with FIRs on jurisdictional and procedural grounds and the broader implications for ongoing anti-corruption investigations.