Invoking the Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita and even Cinderella, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has quashed the FIR against former chief minister N Chandrababu Naidu over alleged irregularities in the Amaravati land pooling scheme, while holding that governments cannot turn policy decisions of their predecessors into criminal cases after a change in power.Justice Y Lakshmana Rao was on July 15 hearing criminal petitions filed by Naidu and former municipal administration minister Ponguru Narayana seeking to cancel the FIR registered by the Andhra Pradesh CID on March 12, 2021, on the complaint of then Mangalagiri MLA Alla Ramakrishna Reddy.The court 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”.“With restrained judicial humour, this Court notes that Government Orders transform from routine administrative acts into alleged instruments of villainy, and back again with every election – much like Cinderella’s carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight,” the court said on July 15.The complaint, the judge observed, was lodged by an MLA of the ruling party against leaders of the previous government and was investigated by the CID functioning under the state government. Holding that the FIR disclosed no cognisable offence, it quashed the proceedings against Naidu and Narayana. Justice Y Lakshmana Rao observed the ‘irony of political rivals accusing each other of criminality only after losing office.’Case, allegationsUnder the land pooling scheme, the government took over land from farmers in exchange for “high-value” residential and commercial plots in the capital region. Under the plan, farmers get 1,000 sq yards of residential plots and 250 sq yards of commercial land in the city of Amaravati in exchange for an acre of agricultural land. Records from 2019 show that 28,181 landowners in 25 villages contributed 35,215 acres of their private farmland for developing Amaravati.The FIR alleged that the then TDP government illegally issued a government order on February 17, 2016, to extend the Amaravati land pooling benefits to certain categories of assigned lands, enabling private individuals and alleged encroachers to receive developed plots and causing losses to poor landholders. It invoked provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act.Story continues below this adNaidu and Narayana contended that the FIR was politically motivated and sought to criminalise a policy decision taken transparently by an elected government while establishing Andhra Pradesh’s new capital after the state’s bifurcation. Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, who represented Naidu in the matter, argued that the FIR unlawfully criminalised a policy decision, contending that issuing a valid government order cannot be a cause for prosecution simply because a successive government disagrees with it.Judgment quotes Mahabharata, KalidasaThe judgment opened with a verse from the Mahabharata’s Shanti Parva, describing justice as the highest dharma, the greatest happiness and the highest liberation.The judgment also drew on the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Quoting his observation that “Genuine liberty is freedom from arbitrary power”, the court said the FIR sought to impose arbitrary power upon legitimate governance.Invoking classical Sanskrit poet Kalidasa’s Raghuvamsha, the court said, “The king’s happiness lies in the happiness of his subjects”, underlining that governance decisions, even if disputed, cannot be reduced to criminal conspiracies. It ultimately concluded that the FIR “stands vitiated by mala fides and political vendetta.”Story continues below this adAs the judgment drew to a close, the court invoked the Bhagavad Gita once again, quoting the verse “Uddhared atmanam atmanam, na atmanam avasadayet; atmaiva hy atmano bandhur, atmaiva ripur atmanah“—”Let a person elevate oneself by one’s own mind and not degrade oneself; the mind can be one’s greatest friend and also one’s greatest enemy.”It said the case highlighted the distinction between governmental decisions that may be questioned in constitutional or civil proceedings and those that can legitimately attract criminal prosecution. “The registration of criminal cases against opposition leaders by ruling party governments, and vice versa, has become a disturbing feature of Indian politics. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly expressed concern about the weaponization of criminal law for political purposes,” it said.Political vendettaThe judgment contained unusually blunt observations on the political misuse of criminal law. “The registration of criminal cases against opposition leaders by ruling party governments, and vice versa, has become a disturbing feature of Indian politics, the court said.“The pattern is clear: the complaint was filed by an MLA of the ruling party, it targeted the former (present) Chief Minister and a former (present) Cabinet Minister, it was registered two years after the change of Government, and it was being investigated by the CID, which functions directly under the State Government,” it added.Story continues below this adJustice Rao remarked that after every political transition, governmental decisions of the previous regime appear to be transformed into criminal cases “like Cinderella’s carriage turning into a pumpkin at midnight.”‘No criminal offence’The high court held that the prosecution had failed to disclose the basic ingredients of any criminal offence. It noted that the choice of Amaravati as the capital followed the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, recommendations of the K Sivaramakrishnan Committee, Cabinet approval, extensive public consultations, and a unanimous resolution of the Legislative Assembly.More than 25,000 farmers voluntarily pooled over 30,000 acres under the scheme, the judgment noted, rejecting allegations that the exercise was founded on fraud or coercion.The court further held that government order remains in force and has never been struck down by any constitutional court. “The essence of the matter is that the accusations do not disclose any criminal offence but only assail a lawful policy decision,” Justice Rao observed.Story continues below this adHe added that the FIR represented “an attempt to criminalize the exercise of rule-making power vested in the executive” and convert “a solemn act of governance into a penal offence.”Cancelling the FIR against both petitioners, the high court concluded that criminal law cannot become an instrument for political score-settling merely because governments change. In doing so, it delivered not only relief to Chandrababu Naidu and Ponguru Narayana but also a wider message on the constitutional limits of criminal prosecution in a democracy.Can’t ‘criminalise’ policy decisionsThe high court also warned that accepting the prosecution’s theory would have dangerous consequences for democratic governance.“The prosecution in the present matter rests upon a constitutionally untenable premise,” the court observed, holding that treating executive policy decisions as criminal conspiracy “would strike at the very root of democratic governance.”Story continues below this ad“It is constitutionally impermissible, legally incoherent, and profoundly dangerous to democratic governance,” said the judgment, rejecting the theory that ministers participating in Cabinet decisions could later face criminal conspiracy charges merely because a subsequent government disagreed with those decisions.The court also relied on Section 146 of the Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) Act, which bars prosecution for actions taken under the law, and the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Haryana v Bhajan Lal to hold that the FIR was legally unsustainable.