Kerala High Court expunges remarks against CM Pinarayi Vijayan in ADGP Ajith Kumar corruption case

The Kerala High Court on Friday expunged critical remarks made by a Magistrate court against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in connection with a corruption case filed against Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) MR Ajith Kumar. [MR Ajith Kumar v State of Kerala and connected case]..Justice A Badhurudeen also partly allowed a petition moved by the ADGP to quash the proceedings initiated against him by the Magistrate court. The Court noted that the Magistrate court had neither forwarded the complaint against Kumar for police investigation nor asked the private complainant to obtain Sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute a public servant. The Magistrate court had instead decided to proceed with the complaint finding a prima facie case. This amounts to taking cognizance, which is not permissible without first obtaining sanction to prosecute, the High Court said. "Thus in the instant case, when the Special Judge, on receipt of the complaint, decided not to forward the complaint for investigation by the police under Section 175(3) of BNSS, following the ratio in Anil Kumar v M.K.Aiyappa's case (supra) (the correctness of the same is now pending before a larger Bench of the Apex Court),he ought to have directed the complainant to produce sanction in terms of Section 19(1) r/w the first proviso clauses (i) and (ii) to proceed further: If so, the impugned order, whereby the learned Special Judge decided to proceed under Section 223 of the BNSS on finding a prima facie case on applying his mind without sanction, amounts to an order taking cognizance, and therefore, the same is non-est in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside," the Court explained. Although it set aside the Magistrate court's decision to proceed against Kumar, the High Court did not quash the private complaint. It merely relegated it to a pre-cognizance stage. This effectively allows the trial court to proceed but only after the complainant obtains the required sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. .The Court also set aside the finding of the Magistrate court that inquiry reports submitted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) in favour of Kumar were unacceptable. The Court opined that the Magistrate court had overstepped its jurisdiction in doing so."The finding of the Special Court that the [inquiry reports] are not acceptable is set aside, subject to the right of the aggrieved persons, to challenge its legality, as per law," the Court said. .The private complaint in this case was filed by Neyyattinkara P Nagaraj, alleging that Ajith Kumar amassed assets disproportionate to his income during his tenure as DSP, SP, DIG, and ADGP between 1994 and 2024.Prior to Nagaraj filing the complaint, former MLA PV Anvar had publicly made similar accusations, additionally claiming that Kumar was linked to illegal gold and hawala dealings, unauthorised phone tapping, and even illicit timber extraction from government land. Following Anvar's allegations the government ordered a high-level enquiry through the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), which ultimately reported that no wrongdoing had been found.While considering Nagaraj's complaint, the Magistrate court also declined to accept these VACB reports. The Magistrate court noted that the VACB came under the control of the Chief Minister and questioned the role of constitutional dignitaries in the inquiry."The allegation raised by the complainant is that there was intervention at the instance of departmental officers, bureaucrats, and politicians to subvert the enquiry initiated against the suspected officer. The question is: What is the role of the so-called constitutional dignitaries in the enquiry initiated against the high-ranking police officer? It is a fact that the vigilance department falls under the control of the Chief Minister of the State; it is solely for governance and nothing more," the trial court observed in its order.Thus, holding that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case, the Magistrate court concluded that the private complaint under the PC Act were maintainable without prior sanction and decided to proceed against the ADGP.This prompted Kumar to move the High Court challenging the Magistrate court's decision. The State government also moved the High Court challenging the remarks made against the Chief Minister and other constitutional functionaries by the Magistrate court..Today, the High Court passed a common judgment on both pleas, partly allowing Kumar's petition and allowing the State's plea in full..[Read Order].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.