The Kerala High Court delivered a stern warning to the state government on Friday, asserting that it could face contempt of court proceedings in the ongoing Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) graft case. The court strongly criticized the government for what it termed as misuse of judicial courtesy in handling the corruption allegations.
Court's Strong Rebuke to State Government
Justice A Badharudeen made these significant remarks while considering a contempt petition filed by Kadakampally Manoj from Kollam. The petition challenged the state government's refusal to grant prosecution sanction in the corruption case, despite a previous court order mandating such action.
The case originates from serious allegations of large-scale corruption in the import and purchase operations of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation. This public sector undertaking has been under scrutiny for questionable practices in its procurement processes.
Background of the Corruption Investigation
Earlier, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had investigated these corruption allegations under a High Court order issued on a petition filed by Manoj. The probe had identified several individuals as accused, including former KSCDC chairman and INTUC state president R Chandrasekharan, former managing director K A Ratheesh, and two others.
Before filing its final report, the CBI sought prosecution sanction from the state industries department under the Prevention of Corruption Act. However, the state government repeatedly denied this request, which led to the current contempt petition being filed against industries department principal secretary A P M Muhamed Hanish.
Government's Defense and Court's Rejection
On Thursday, Hanish had filed an additional counter-affidavit arguing that the contempt petition was not maintainable since there was no contempt on the part of the state. He contended that the government had technically complied with the High Court's order by making a decision on the application for prosecution sanction - even though that decision was a rejection.
The government representative suggested that the appropriate remedy would be to challenge the government order through proper legal proceedings rather than pursuing contempt charges.
However, the court orally rejected these arguments, noting that in its previous order it had already found that the state had committed contempt, but had granted an opportunity to rectify the situation by reconsidering the earlier order denying prosecution sanction.
The court posed a crucial question: "Even though the court itself found that there is contempt, how can the state say that there is no contempt?" The bench emphasized that while it had primarily found contempt, it had given the state a chance to correct its mistake as a matter of courtesy, which the government had now misused.
The court has adjourned the petition to December 8 for further proceedings, leaving the state government with limited time to reconsider its position or face potential contempt charges.
