Kerala HC Stays Further Proceedings In DA Complaint Against ADGP Ajith Kumar

ADGP Ajith Kumar

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued an interim stay on proceedings before the Special Vigilance Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in a disproportionate assets case against Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) M R Ajith Kumar.

On August 14, the Vigilance Court had held that a complaint filed by Neyyatinkara Nagaraj was maintainable and dismissed the clean chit report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thiruvananthapuram Special Unit – 1. The VACB had investigated multiple allegations against the senior police officer.

The court then scheduled a hearing of the complainant for August 30, signalling that it intended to proceed with the case despite the closure report.

HC Questions Lack Of Sanction

Hearing Ajith Kumar’s plea against the Vigilance Court order, Justice A. Badharudheen observed that there was a serious question about how the Vigilance Court could proceed without the mandatory sanction from the government.

The judge stressed that government consent was a prerequisite for a Vigilance Court to take cognisance of an offence involving a public servant.

Ajith Kumar’s counsel argued that merely summoning the complainant for a hearing could not be treated as taking cognisance of the offence. The High Court agreed to examine this contention and stayed further proceedings until September 12, when the matter will be reconsidered.

Legal Provisions In Focus

The court also examined provisions under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Under Section 226, if a Magistrate finds no sufficient ground to proceed after reviewing the complainant’s statements and witnesses, the complaint must be dismissed with recorded reasons.

Additionally, the High Court referred to Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which makes prior sanction of the government or competent authority mandatory before a court can take cognisance of a corruption-related offence against a public servant. The section also clarifies that such sanction can only be sought after a competent court has entertained the complaint and directed the complainant to obtain approval for prosecution.

Defence Argument

In his petition, Ajith Kumar maintained that whether at the pre-cognisance or post-cognisance stage, sanction remains a legal necessity when the accused is a public servant. He cited previous judicial pronouncements to argue that the Vigilance Court’s action was contrary to established law.

With the High Court’s interim stay, all proceedings before the Vigilance Court remain suspended. The matter will come up again on September 12, when the High Court is expected to decide whether the Vigilance Court’s move to examine the complainant can legally stand without prior sanction.