LIFE Mission Case: Kerala HC Denies Bail To CM Pinarayi Vijayan’s Ex-Principal Secretary M Sivasankar

The Kerala High Court on Thursday refused to grant bail to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s former Principal Secretary M Sivasankar in a money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with its investigation into the LIFE Mission project.

The verdict was delivered by Justice A Badharudeen.

The Kerala government’s LIFE (Livelihood, Inclusion, and Financial Empowerment) Mission is a housing security scheme that aims to offer residences to all landless and homeless citizens of the state.

The lawsuit covers a single project under this scheme that is alleged to have received funding from a foreign organisation in violation of the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA). The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is also looking into the matter.

In 2020, Anil Akkara, then MLA for Wadakkanchery in Thrissur district, registered a complaint alleging that the LIFE Mission project breached FCRA standards. His specific complaint was against the project in his Wadakkanchery constituency.

The State government agreed to allot land to building contractors chosen by the donors for the project. The UAE consulate’s Red Crescent funded the Wadakkanchery project.

Akkara stated that the Kerala government got funds from the Red Crescent for Unitac Builders (the designated contractor), in violation of the FCRA.

The CBI then filed a FIR in response to the complaint, citing Unitac’s Santhosh Eappen, Sane Ventures (another contractor), and “unnamed LIFE Mission project officials.”

The LIFE Mission project was allegedly awarded to Eappen and Sane venture at the request of former UAE Consulate employee and gold smuggling suspect Swapna Suresh, who collaborated with Sivasankar, who was then the principal secretary to the Kerala Chief Minister’s Office.

Sivasankar was apprehended on February 14 and has been detained since. On March 2, a Special Court for trying crimes under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) denied his bail application, prompting the current High Court petition.

Sivasankar stated in his bail application that the predicate offenses, as stated in the arrest order, are an FIR filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) under the Prevention of Corruption Act and another FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for FCRA violations.

According to the ECIR (Enforcement Case Information Report), several people, including some government officials, received monetary benefits and illegal gratification from funds received from the UAE Red Crescent for flood victims in Kerala through the LIFE Mission project.

On multiple fronts, the plea assailed the ED’s claims.

Sivasankar has firmly declared that he is a highly qualified former public servant who is absolutely innocent of all allegations and that his detention is nothing more than a political ploy.

The petition also contested the Special Court’s approach in dismissing his prior bail application, particularly the fact that it relied on documents provided by the ED under sealed covers.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, appearing for Sivasankar, contended that the allegations against Sivasankar in the LIFE Mission case originated from the same set of facts implicated in the 2020 gold smuggling case, in which Swapna Suresh is one of the major accused.

He argued that the Supreme Court ruled in TT Antony v. State of Kerala that two offences could not be charged based on the same set of facts.

The amount of money alleged to have been provided as bribes to Sivasankar was less than one crore, which permits for bail under the PMLA.

Before ending his arguements, Gupta also emphasized Sivasankar’s medical condition.

Senior Advocate R Sankaranarayanan, Additional Solicitor General of India, argued against these claims on behalf of the Central agency.

He stated that the facts that led to the filing of the two cases are distinct. He further claimed that the High Court had previously given Sivasankar bail in the gold smuggling case on medical reasons, but that he had denied medical procedures and returned to work a few weeks later after he was released.