The Kerala High Court struck down critical remarks made against CM Pinarayi Vijayan and ruled that proceedings against ADGP Ajith Kumar were initiated without mandatory legal sanction. The court corrected procedural errors and sent the case back to the pre-cognizance stage.
The Kerala High Court on Friday removed critical remarks made by a Magistrate court against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in a corruption-related matter involving Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) MR Ajith Kumar.
The case is titled MR Ajith Kumar v State of Kerala and connected case. Along with this, the High Court also partly allowed a petition filed by ADGP Ajith Kumar seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him by the Magistrate court.
Justice A Badhurudeen observed that the Magistrate court had committed a serious procedural error while deciding to proceed against Kumar.
The High Court explained that the Magistrate court neither forwarded the complaint for police investigation nor instructed the private complainant to obtain mandatory sanction under Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is required before prosecuting a public servant.
Instead, the Magistrate court chose to move forward by stating that a prima facie case existed, which the High Court said amounted to taking cognizance without sanction, something not permitted under law.
The Court explained,
“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,”
Based on this reasoning, the High Court set aside the Magistrate court’s decision to proceed against Ajith Kumar. However, it did not completely dismiss the private complaint.
Instead, it pushed the matter back to a pre-cognizance stage, making it clear that the trial court can only continue the case after the complainant secures the necessary sanction as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The High Court also took issue with the Magistrate court’s decision to reject the inquiry reports submitted by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), which had cleared Kumar of wrongdoing.
The High Court held that the Magistrate court went beyond its authority by declaring these reports unacceptable.
The court said,
“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 private complaint in this matter was filed by Neyyattinkara P Nagaraj, who alleged that Ajith Kumar had accumulated assets disproportionate to his known sources of income during his service as DSP, SP, DIG, and ADGP between 1994 and 2024.
Even before this complaint was filed, former MLA PV Anvar had made similar public allegations, claiming that Kumar was involved in illegal gold and hawala transactions, unauthorised phone tapping, and illegal timber extraction from government land.
Following these serious allegations by Anvar, the Kerala government ordered a high-level enquiry through the VACB.
After completing its investigation, the VACB submitted reports stating that no wrongdoing was found on the part of Ajith Kumar. However, while considering Nagaraj’s complaint, the Magistrate court refused to accept these VACB reports and questioned their credibility.
In its order, the Magistrate court also raised concerns about the independence of the Vigilance department, noting that it comes under the control of the Chief Minister and discussing the role of constitutional authorities in the enquiry process.
The trial court observed in its order,
“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,”
Based on this reasoning, the Magistrate court had earlier held that the private complaint disclosed a prima facie case and concluded that proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act were maintainable even without prior sanction.
This decision led to the Magistrate court moving forward against Ajith Kumar, prompting him to approach the High Court challenging the legality of the order.
At the same time, the Kerala State government also filed a separate plea before the High Court, objecting to the critical remarks made by the Magistrate court against the Chief Minister and other constitutional functionaries.
After hearing both sides, the High Court delivered a common judgment, partly allowing Ajith Kumar’s petition and fully allowing the State government’s plea, thereby expunging the remarks made against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and correcting the procedural errors committed by the Magistrate court.
This judgment makes it clear that while complaints against public servants can be examined, strict legal procedures, especially the requirement of prior sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, must be followed before any court can take cognizance or proceed further in such matters
Case Title:
MR Ajith Kumar v State of Kerala and connected case
Read Order:
Click Here To Read More Reports on CM Pinarayi Vijayan
