Kerala High Court asks whether State sanction was obtained to prosecute ADGP Ajith Kumar in corruption case

Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) MR Ajith Kumar has moved a plea before the Kerala High Court challenging a special court's decision to proceed with a disproportionate assets case against him despite a vigilance report exonerating him.

Justice A Badharudeen briefly heard the matter on Tuesday. The judge today asked whether proper State sanction has been given to prosecute the ADGP in the matter as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act).

The Court also directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to submit an action taken statement on this aspect.

The judge raised several questions about the investigation and emphasised that the Court will be examining whether all such procedural safeguards have been complied with.

The matter will be heard further tomorrow, when the Court is likely to consider whether a stay or any other interim order needs to be passed in the matter.

The corruption allegations against the ADGP were first made by LDF-backed independent MLA from Nilambur, PV Anvar. In 2024, Anvar accused Ajith Kumar of amassing illegal wealth, interfering with a gold smuggling case for financial gain, phone tapping and being involved in illegal timber felling.

The MLA also held a press conference and alleged that the ADGP was constructing a palatial house in Thiruvananthapuram, again implying that the police officer held disproportionate wealth.

A probe was conducted in the matter, with the vigilance authorities eventually giving the ADGP a clean chit. However on August 14, a special court hearing the case rejected this clean chit and also criticised the inquiry officers.

This has been challenged by Ajith Kumar before the High Court.

In his plea, ADGP Kumar has stated that the special court illegally rejected the VACB's detailed preliminary inquiry report, which exonerated him of charges relating to illegal amassment of wealth, unlawful felling of timber from government property, and profiteering from gold and hawala transactions.

The Court today asked whether it was a senior officer or a junior officer who had conducted the probe against ADGP Kumar, expressing concerns that it may be irregular if it was a junior officer who conducted the inquiry.

The Court further said that it needs to be verified whether the final enquiry report was submitted with government approval.

The main question before the Court, however, concerns whether due sanction for prosecution had been given under Section 17A of the PC Act.

"Was there prosecution approval? If the investigation was conducted without it, the action is contrary to due procedure," the judge observed today.

The Court went on to note that under the PC Act, any complaint must first go through an enquiry and get a sanction for prosecution under Section 17A.

Meanwhile, PV Anvar (complainant) has also sought to be added as a party to the matter. The Court said it would consider this impleadment request tomorrow.

Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai appeared for Ajith Kumar today.

Kumar's plea was filed through advocate VB Sujesh Menon of B Raman Pillai and Associates.