The Kerala High Court has removed disparaging comments made by a Vigilance Court about Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the case concerning alleged disproportionate assets of ADGP M. R. Ajithkumar. In an order delivered by Justice A. Badharudeen, the Court granted the State’s request to expunge certain observations in the Special Court’s judgment, which had implied that the executive had unduly influenced the vigilance enquiry to produce a favorable report.
The challenged remarks appeared in multiple paragraphs of the Special Judge’s order, where the court had expressed suspicion that the vigilance investigation was compromised. The Judge had suggested an "invisible penetration" of the enquiry process, stating that the report appeared to be “subservient” to the executive. The court had also questioned why a subordinate officer was appointed as the enquiry officer in the investigation, questioning whether such an officer could conduct an independent and fair inquiry when the allegations were directed at his superiors.
Upon hearing the State’s appeal, the High Court agreed that these remarks were inappropriate. It held that they went beyond evaluating the evidence and crossed into unfair characterisation of state machinery and its actions, without sufficient substantiation. The Court found that such observations could undermine public confidence in governance and judicial proceedings, and it therefore ordered their removal from the record.
In addition to expunging the remarks, the High Court reviewed other aspects of the case. It also set aside the Special Court’s earlier decision to proceed against Ajithkumar, sending the matter back to the pre-cognizance stage. While the private complaint remains valid, further action can only be initiated after obtaining the required legal sanction.
This decision highlights the High Court’s role in safeguarding the dignity and reputation of public officials, particularly where courts make strong insinuations against high-ranking authorities. The ruling underscores that judicial commentary—even in serious corruption cases—must be carefully calibrated and founded on clear, admissible evidence.
At the same time, by partially allowing Ajithkumar’s plea, the Court has enshrined procedural safeguards, ensuring that any prosecution must proceed only after proper pre-cognizance steps and statutory sanction. The case will now return to earlier stages for further consideration under the correct legal framework.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.