The Andhra Pradesh High Court on Thursday, 5 November 2026, adjourned to 10 November the hearing on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking transfer of cases registered by the Crime Investigation Department (CID) against Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for an independent investigation. A bench headed by Chief Justice Lisa Gill granted the adjournment in the matter filed by petitioner Kotti Balagangadhar Tilak.

Background and What the PIL Challenges

The PIL was originally filed in 2024, shortly after the change of government in Andhra Pradesh, with the petitioner anticipating that the shift in political power could compromise ongoing CID investigations and result in their closure. Those fears, the petitioner argues, have since materialised — several cases were reportedly closed and treated as 'mistakes of fact' even as the PIL remained pending before the court.

The cases at the centre of the litigation span a wide range of alleged irregularities, including the transfer of assigned lands belonging to SC/ST community members, suspected irregularities in the award of an optical-fibre network tender, the establishment of skill development centres, land acquisition for the Inner Ring Road, excise-policy decisions, and the formulation and implementation of the free-sand policy.

Petitioner's Arguments for CBI Transfer

Senior Counsel Ranjith, appearing for the petitioner, contended that the complainants in these cases are government officials who have not come forward to challenge the closure reports — a situation he attributed to the current political climate with Chandrababu Naidu in power. He submitted that this effectively leaves the petitioner as the sole party seeking independent judicial scrutiny.

Counsel Ranjith further argued that the High Court, as a constitutional court, retains the authority to order an independent inquiry or transfer an investigation to the CBI even after closure reports have been filed and accepted — asserting that closure of a case does not extinguish the court's power to examine whether a fair probe was conducted.

An interlocutory petition has also been filed by the petitioner seeking directions to the Vijayawada Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) Court to prevent documents and electronic devices seized during investigations from being returned to the concerned individuals.

State Government's Counter: PIL Is Infructuous

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for the state government and the CID, urged the court during the previous hearing in October to dismiss the PIL as infructuous. He informed the bench that the Special Investigation Team (SIT) had filed final reports before the Vijayawada ACB Court concluding that sufficient evidence was not available to proceed in the cases against Naidu. The ACB Court subsequently ordered the closure of those cases.

Rohatgi also noted that some individuals had already filed revision petitions before the High Court challenging the closure orders, suggesting that the existing judicial mechanisms were adequate and that the PIL served no additional purpose.

Key Procedural Detail: Pressure Allegation on Record

According to the case-status chart placed before the court, closure reports have been filed and accepted across the cases, while related proceedings — including petitions seeking copies of reports and challenges to closures — remain pending. Notably, the chart also records a protest petition filed by a complainant in one assigned-land case, alleging that CID-SIT officials pressured the complainant to provide a no-objection certificate for the closure of that case. This allegation, on the court's record, adds a layer of complexity that the bench will be required to address when the matter is next taken up.

What Happens Next

The matter is now listed for hearing on 10 November before Chief Justice Gill's bench. The court will need to decide whether the PIL retains maintainability given the closure of the underlying cases, or whether the circumstances — particularly the pressure allegation and the petitioner's constitutional arguments — warrant a direction for CBI transfer or further inquiry. The outcome could have significant implications for how post-election investigations are scrutinised in Andhra Pradesh.