The Kerala High Court overturned the Vigilance Court’s order against ADGP M.R. Ajith Kumar, thereby upholding his previous clean chit.
The court held that before any probe of a public servant, prior sanction is mandatory, and criticised the lower court’s remarks on the Chief Minister’s office as lacking basis.
The case is sent back to the pre-cognisance stage; any new complaint must follow proper legal procedure and is no guarantee of fresh investigation.
Kerala High Court Quashes Vigilance Court Order Against ADGP M.R. Ajith Kumar in Disproportionate Assets Case
The Kerala High Court has set aside the Vigilance Court order revoking the clean chit of M.R. Ajith Kumar, Additional Director General of Police, in a disproportionate assets case, ruling that any further probe requires prior sanction and striking down unwarranted remarks against the Chief Minister’s office.
Summary
In a significant relief for Additional Director General of Police M.R. Ajith Kumar, the Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the Vigilance Court’s order which had overturned his earlier exoneration in a disproportionate assets case.
The High Court ruled that at this stage no further investigation should proceed unless the mandatory prior sanction — as required when a public servant is implicated under the Prevention of Corruption Act — is obtained. It also struck down the adverse observations made by the Vigilance Court against the office of the Chief Minister of Kerala, finding them to lack legal basis and supporting evidence.
The case stems from allegations made by former MLA P.V. Anvar and a private complaint by Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj that accused Ajith Kumar of amassing disproportionate assets, involvement in gold-smuggling, construction of a luxury residence with illicit funds, and misuse of teak wood. However, a vigilance inquiry report cleared him of all such allegations, citing legitimate bank transactions and legal disposal of property.
The Vigilance Court, however, had rejected that clean chit and ordered further proceedings — a decision now invalidated by the High Court, which deemed that the lower court should not have proceeded without prima facie material justifying further inquiry.
While the High Court has permitted the private complaint to be relegated to the pre-cognisance stage, it has emphasised that any fresh action must follow proper procedure. The ruling underscores that reputations should not be damaged by unsubstantiated allegations and that procedural safeguards must be respected in corruption investigations.
Published At: