Vigilance judge rules Chief Minister has no legal standing to interfere in anti-corruption inquiries

The Left Democratic Front (LDF) government appeared to have suffered a legal and political setback after a special court ruled here on Thursday that the Chief Minister has no legal standing to interfere in anti-corruption inquiries.

Inquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thiruvananthapuram, A Manoj, slammed the VACB’s contention that its legally disputed preliminary inquiry report exculpating former Additional Director General of Police, Law and Order, M.R. Ajith Kumar, from charges of illegal amassment of wealth, had the Chief Minister’s approval.

The judge, somewhat scathingly, ruled that the VACB’s testimony had no standing in a court of law and contravened the basic principles of jurisprudence.

“What is the role of the so-called Constitutional dignitaries in the inquiry 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. Whether a person has committed an offence, whether an allegation would disclose the commission of a cognisable offence, is to be decided based on the statutory principles and does not depend on the approval of the political executive. Nobody has the right to interfere in the inquiry, whether at the initial stage or the conclusion,” the judge wrote. 

Mr. Manoj noted pointedly that the complainant, P. Nagaraj, a lawyer and public interest litigant, had testified in court that persons holding high political office and top bureaucrats had conspired to derail the anti-corruption probe.

Notably, Mr. Nagaraj had named Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s political secretary, P. Sasi, as one of the respondents in his petition. The court termed the VACB’s “clean chit” to Mr Ajith Kumar as unacceptable.

Mr. Manoj observed that the court did not have the power to order the Director, VACB, to register a case against Mr. Ajith Kumar and other respondents and investigate “the offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (amended in 2018).

Nevertheless, the judge wrote that section 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, empowered the court to examine the complainant and the respondents under oath to hear their case before “taking cognisance of the anti-corruption charge”.

Mr. Manoj said the court had enough proof on record to conduct such an investigation. Moreover, the judge noted that the State Police Chief’s investigation into the imputations against Mr. Ajith Kumar had “prima facie disclosed that the allegations have a vigilance angle in the form of misappropriation and corruption, attracting the provisions of the anti-corruption law”.