In a landmark judgment on Thursday, the Supreme Court of India set aside a controversial decision by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that had quashed numerous corruption cases, reviving investigations and criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act. The apex court strongly criticized the high court’s approach as “hyper-technical” and termed it “nothing but a travesty of justice,” asserting that procedural formalities should not obstruct the course of law in cases involving serious allegations of corruption.

A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma pronounced the judgment while hearing an appeal filed by the Joint Director of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB), Rayalseema. The appeal was filed after the Andhra Pradesh High Court had, in 2025, quashed a series of FIRs registered with the ACB in Vijayawada, holding that the bureau was not a police station under Section 2(s) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and therefore lacked jurisdiction to register such FIRs.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected this reasoning. The bench observed, “We are dealing with a set of cases where FIRs registered for offences punishable under the PC Act have been quashed, leaving investigations nipped in the bud in some cases while criminal proceedings stood terminated in others. In our considered view, the approach of the High Court is nothing but a travesty of justice.”

The case revolves around the post-bifurcation administrative changes in Andhra Pradesh. Before the division of undivided Andhra Pradesh in 2014, the government had, in 2003, designated ACB Hyderabad as a police station, allowing it to register PC Act cases. Following the creation of Telangana in 2014, the jurisdiction of Hyderabad ceased to pertain to Andhra Pradesh. Consequently, the Andhra Pradesh government issued a notification in 2016 shifting ACB Hyderabad’s functions to ACB Vijayawada and subsequently, in 2022, formally designated ACB Vijayawada as a police station.

Despite these notifications, the High Court had taken a narrow, procedural view. It concluded that the absence of a notification explicitly declaring ACB Vijayawada a police station under Section 2(s) of the CrPC invalidated the FIRs registered between 2016 and 2020. The Supreme Court, however, emphasized that such a hyper-technical interpretation undermined the spirit of the law. The bench remarked, “If, on a hyper-technical ground, the FIRs are quashed, the High Court is duty-bound to lay down the law with respect to the jurisdiction that otherwise exists.”

Senior advocates Siddharth Luthra and Sidharth Agarwal, representing the ACB, argued that the High Court had failed to account for practical realities post-bifurcation and the government’s clarificatory orders. They contended that the 2016 notification and subsequent 2022 order clearly empowered ACB Vijayawada to register FIRs and carry out investigations under the PC Act. The Supreme Court concurred, noting that the High Court had “completely misdirected itself while interpreting the law” and had taken “undue pains to ensure that FIRs are quashed.”

The Supreme Court also dismissed the High Court’s reasoning that a notification must be published in the official gazette to comply with Section 2(s) of the CrPC. The bench held that substance and due compliance, rather than mere formalities, should guide jurisdictional determinations. “One has to see the substance and due compliance, in spirit,” the Court observed, emphasizing that rigid technicalities cannot override legal and administrative realities.

In addition to reviving the FIRs, the apex court restrained the Andhra Pradesh High Court from entertaining further challenges to FIRs on this jurisdictional ground. However, the bench clarified that the accused retain the right to challenge chargesheets filed after the completion of investigation under appropriate legal remedies, ensuring that procedural safeguards remain available to defendants.

The judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s position that corruption cases, particularly those under the PC Act, should not be impeded by formalistic or hyper-technical interpretations of procedural law. By prioritizing the integrity of investigations and criminal proceedings, the Court reaffirmed the principle that administrative or procedural lapses, when rectifiable, should not be allowed to frustrate substantive justice.

Commenting on the decision, legal experts noted that the verdict also provides clarity on the authority and jurisdiction of state investigative bodies following administrative reorganizations. The Court emphasized that government notifications, especially clarificatory orders, are legally valid and do not require retrospective application to be effective. This interpretation is likely to have far-reaching implications for law enforcement agencies operating in reorganized or newly created administrative territories.

The Supreme Court’s ruling is expected to reactivate a large number of ongoing investigations and cases in Andhra Pradesh, ensuring that alleged instances of corruption are thoroughly examined without being derailed by jurisdictional technicalities. It also sends a strong message to lower courts and state authorities about the need to focus on the substantive merits of cases rather than procedural formalities that could hinder justice.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to set aside the Andhra Pradesh High Court’s order represents a significant reinforcement of accountability mechanisms in corruption cases. By restoring FIRs and criminal proceedings under the PC Act, the judgment ensures that investigations can continue unhindered, while simultaneously reaffirming the principle that procedural rules must serve justice rather than obstruct it. The bench’s stern critique of the High Court’s “hyper-technical” approach highlights the judiciary’s commitment to substantive justice and its role in maintaining the integrity of anti-corruption efforts in India.