Court steps in as government falters on corruption case
Ministers often claim that they will take strong action to end corruption and send those involved to jail. However, in practice, they are often seen protecting their close associates and creating obstacles to proper investigation. The latest example is the Kerala High Court cancelling a government order that denied permission to the CBI to prosecute accused persons in the cashew import corruption case. Justice A Badharudeen stated that rejecting the request by ignoring court directions appears to be contempt of court at first glance. The court also directed Industries Department Principal Secretary A P M Mohammed Hanish to appear in person on May 18.
The CBI had sought permission to prosecute former Cashew Development Corporation chairman and Congress leader R Chandrasekharan and former Managing Director K A Ratheesh. However, the government rejected the request even for the third time. The court directed the government to reconsider the CBI’s request and take an appropriate decision before May 18. The interim order came on a contempt petition filed by Kadakampally Manoj, a native of Kollam. The case relates to alleged corruption and misuse of funds worth Rs 80 crore in the import of raw cashew nuts by the Cashew Development Corporation between 2006 and 2015.
The Industries Department had earlier maintained that there were only procedural lapses and administrative failures in the imports, and that no corruption or misuse of power was found. Based on this, the government rejected the request each time. However, the court observed that the government’s stand cannot be justified and goes against both its earlier position and the court’s findings. It also criticised the government for showing reluctance to prosecute the accused.
The court noted that this is a major scam involving Rs 80 crore that took place years ago. Despite evidence suggesting wrongdoing, the government has been unwilling to allow prosecution. The court said this amounts to a deliberate violation of its orders and goes against public interest. The petitioner had approached the High Court after the government first denied sanction for prosecution. Following the High Court’s order, the CBI took over the investigation in 2016.
The High Court’s decision is seen as a major setback to the government’s stand of protecting those close to it, even after the investigation agency found prima facie evidence and the court raised criticism. The case also raises questions about whether the government will learn any lessons, as it has been accused of trying to protect the accused for more than a decade.