Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to Quashing of Amaravati Land Pooling Case Against CM Naidu

What the Supreme Court Decided

The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision to quash the 2021 criminal case against Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu and former minister Ponguru Narayana over alleged irregularities in the Amaravati land pooling scheme, with the Bench refusing to interfere with the High Court's July 15 judgment. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana dismissed the challenge brought by former YSRCP MLA Alla Rama Krishna Reddy against the Andhra Pradesh High Court's July 15, 2026, judgment.

The CJI told the petitioner's counsel that "political battles should not be fought in court," and disposed of the petition.

Background: The FIR and the Allegations

The FIR was registered on March 12, 2021, under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, following a complaint by then Mangalagiri MLA Alla Rama Krishna Reddy. The complaint had been submitted by Reddy on February 24, 2021. The CID, which probed the case, had named Naidu, Narayana and others as accused, and charged them under various sections of IPC, SC/ST Act, and Assigned Lands Act.

The complaint alleged that amendments to the land pooling framework unlawfully extended benefits to certain categories of assigned land, allegedly causing losses to poor and marginalised landholders while conferring benefits on influential individuals. Reddy had alleged that Naidu and then-minister Narayana had taken decisions that benefited certain individuals.

The complaint relates to the Amaravati land pooling scheme, introduced by the Andhra Pradesh government as an alternative to conventional compulsory land acquisition for developing the proposed capital, under which farmers who surrendered agricultural land were to receive developed residential and commercial plots. The package provided 1,000 square yards of residential land and 250 square yards of commercial land for each acre of agricultural land surrendered, subject to the applicable scheme provisions. The High Court's order noted that the APCRDA Act, 2014, introduced land pooling as an alternative to compulsory acquisition, and the scheme itself was announced as per a 2016 Government Order.

The High Court's July 2026 Ruling

The Andhra Pradesh High Court had quashed the FIR against Naidu and Narayana, holding that the prosecution was vitiated by deliberate political malice and amounted to an abuse of process, and that the FIR sought to criminalise sovereign policy decisions taken in exercise of statutory powers without disclosing any cognizable offence. The High Court found that the prosecution substantially arose from governmental policy decisions and executive actions, and Justice Y Lakshmana Rao held that treating legitimate policy decisions and issuance of government orders as a criminal conspiracy was constitutionally untenable. The court concluded the FIR lacked firm legal foundation and was vitiated by mala fides and political vendetta, and consequently quashed Crime No. 5 of 2021 registered by the CID at Amaravati, Mangalagiri, against Naidu and Narayana.

What the Supreme Court Said — and Its Key Qualification

Senior Advocate Ranjit Kumar, appearing for Reddy, submitted that the alleged irregularities involved around 30,000 acres belonging to more than 25,000 farmers. CJI Surya Kant, while acknowledging the concerns relating to farmers, affirmed that the court stood with them on the larger issue and that whatever they are entitled to should be protected, but pointed out that the criminal proceedings had been initiated at the instance of a political actor.

The bench added an important limitation to its order. It said the High Court judgment would not affect any other cases, which must be examined independently on their own facts and merits. The court clarified that the outcome of the petition would not have a bearing on other cases, which should be adjudicated on their own merits.

Separately, on the wider question of farmer welfare in the assigned-lands dispute, the bench led by Justice Surya Kant clarified that justice must be ensured for farmers who suffered losses after parting with their lands and that the court would intervene if their rights were violated, suggesting farmers could approach the court if they had objections regarding the land pooling policy or related laws. It stated that justice would be delivered with the broader interests of farmers in mind and emphasised that compensation due to them must reach them.

Practical Effect on the Amaravati Land Pooling Programme

The dismissal removes a specific criminal-law challenge tied to the original 2016 land pooling policy, but it does not amount to a blanket clearance of every land pooling dispute in the capital region — the bench was explicit that other cases stand on their own merits.

The ruling comes as the state pushes ahead with land pooling activity in the capital region. Andhra Pradesh has been preparing for another round of land pooling for the Amaravati capital city project, with the state government issuing an order to acquire a total of 20,494 acres of land — including 16,562.56 acres of patta land, 104.01 acres of assigned land and 3,828.30 acres of government land — within the Capital Region under sub-section (2) of Section 55 of the APCRDA Act across seven villages. During its earlier term between 2014 and 2019, the Naidu government had pooled nearly 34,000 acres across 29 villages to build the greenfield capital city. In this second phase, land is to be pooled in Vaikuntapuram, Pedamadduru, Endrai, Karlapudi, Vaddamanu, Harischandrapuram and Pedaparimi.

What This Ruling Does Not Decide

Legal commentary on the order has cautioned against reading it too broadly. It would be an overstatement to treat this as a general finding that the Chief Minister cannot face any criminal scrutiny over Amaravati-related decisions — the Court's dismissal is confined to this specific FIR and this specific petitioner. The Supreme Court made an important qualification that the High Court's judgment would not govern other criminal cases, which must be considered independently on their own merits — a clarification described as legally significant.