Court rejects clean chit to Kerala IPS officer: ‘Political executive has no role in inquiry’

'There is an invisible penetration by someone into the inquiry that leads to the preparation of a report favourable to the suspected officer,' the court said

Written by Shaju Philip

Thiruvananthapuram | August 16, 2025 05:45 IST

There has been an apparent attempt to overcome the statutory provisions, Vigilance Manual and the Supreme Court’s judgments in the probe against the ADGP, the court said.

Rejecting a vigilance report giving clean chit to a senior IPS officer M R Ajith Kumar in an alleged wealth assessment complaint, the vigilance court here has observed that “the political executive does not have a role in the enquiry initiated against an officer”.

The enquiry commissioner and special judge (vigilance) A Manoj said Thursday that the documents produced before the court would establish a prima facie case, which is fit to proceed further. The court decided to examine the complainant advocate P Nagaraj and others in the case before “taking cognisance of the anti-corruption charge”.

The litigant had approached the vigilance court seeking that a case be registered against the ADGP under prevention of corruption act after the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) failed to act upon his petition. Known as a confidant of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, ADGP Kumar is now serving as excise commissioner.

While defending the clean chit given to the ADGP, the vigilance bureau informed the court that the probe was complete and that the home department had accepted a report from the vigilance director stating that “it is also informed that the above decision has the approval of the chief minister”.

Referring to this point, the court said: “The question is: what is the role of the so-called constitutional dignitaries in the enquiry initiated against the high-ranking police officer? It is a fact that the vigilance department falls under the control of the Chief Minister of the State; it is solely for governance and nothing more. The political executive does not have a role in the enquiry initiated against an officer”.

Facts of the case suggest that “there is an invisible penetration by someone into the inquiry that leads to the preparation of a report favourable to the suspected officer, who holds a high position in the police department”, the court said.

“The enquiry report is a subservient report prepared for those who need reports like the present one. This court cannot believe that the officers of the vigilance department and the superpower authority controlling them are unknown to the Lalithkumari case principle (police to register FIR upon information about a cognizable offence),” the court said.

Story continues below this ad

There has been an apparent attempt to overcome the statutory provisions, Vigilance Manual and the Supreme Court’s judgments in the probe against the ADGP, the court said.

“Upon reading the entire report, it becomes clear that the facts collected were based on the statement provided by the suspected officer (ADGP).’’

Last year, the government had removed Kumar as ADGP law and order over his lapses in the conduct of Thrissur Pooram Festival in 2024 before the Lok Sabha election. Both Congress and Left Democratic Front ally Communist Party of India have alleged that Kumar’s meeting with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader Dattatreya Hosabale was part of a conspiracy that led to the “deliberate botching” of the festival.

Editor's Choice