Kerala High Court Holds Principal Secretary in Civil Contempt Over Cashew Graft Case
The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant ruling, holding that the principal secretary of the industries department (cashew) has prima facie committed civil contempt by denying prosecution sanction in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) graft case. This action was taken in direct violation of explicit court directives, marking a serious judicial rebuke of state government officials.
Court Orders Personal Appearance and Fresh Consideration
In a strongly worded order, the bench of Justice A Badharudeen directed Principal Secretary A P M Muhamed Hanish to appear in person before the court at 10:15 AM on May 18 for further proceedings in the contempt case. The court also set aside Hanish's order denying prosecution sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and directed him to reconsider the matter in light of previous judicial findings.
The principal secretary must issue a fresh order on or before May 18, following the court's observations in the strictest sense. This directive comes after the court found the government's position "unjustifiable" and indicative of hesitation to prosecute the accused for reasons known only to the administration.
Background of the Corruption Allegations
The case originates from allegations of large-scale corruption in the import and purchase of cashews by the KSCDC, involving an estimated Rs 80 crore scam in 2011. Following a High Court order on a petition filed by Kadakampally Manoj of Kollam, the CBI investigated the matter and identified four accused:
- Former KSCDC chairman and INTUC state president R Chandrasekharan
- Former managing director K A Ratheesh
- Two other individuals
Before filing its final report, the CBI sought prosecution sanction from the state industries department under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Despite repeated requests, the sanction was denied, prompting the contempt petition against Principal Secretary Hanish.
Court's Strong Observations and Rejection of Government Arguments
The High Court made several critical observations in its ruling:
- The government's stand ignored both the CBI report and previous court findings
- The position was arbitrary, against public interest, and in gross violation of High Court directives
- The government appeared reluctant to grant sanction even though prosecution materials prima facie substantiated offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act
- The contemnor had wilfully disobeyed the court's direction, constituting civil contempt
The state government had argued that the contempt petition was not maintainable, claiming compliance with the High Court's order by merely deciding on the sanction application (even though rejected). They contended that the appropriate remedy would be to challenge the government order through separate proceedings rather than a contempt petition.
However, the court firmly rejected these contentions, emphasizing that the principal secretary's actions represented a clear case of willful disobedience of judicial directives. The ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring compliance with its orders in corruption cases of significant public interest.
