The Kerala High Court has upheld the decision requiring Mohammed Hanish, Principal Secretary of the Industries Department (cashew), to personally appear in ongoing contempt proceedings related to a corruption scandal involving the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited (KSCDC). This decision comes as part of a legal challenge brought by Hanish, which was dismissed by a division bench comprising Justices K Natarajan and Johnson John.
The contempt proceedings originated from the State government’s repeated refusal to grant the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) permission to prosecute former KSCDC officials implicated in a corruption case, despite previous High Court directives. The division bench found no fault in the earlier order issued by Justice A Badharudeen that necessitated Hanish’s attendance in court.
Background of the Contempt Case
The contempt case stems from a petition filed by Kadakampally Manoj, alleging significant corruption and financial misconduct in the procurement of raw cashew by the KSCDC. The High Court, responding to these allegations, ordered a CBI investigation in 2015. The investigation revealed that KSCDC officials allegedly conspired with an individual named Jaimon Joseph to fraudulently award contracts, resulting in substantial financial losses for the corporation.
Following the CBI’s findings, it sought authorization to prosecute former KSCDC chairman R Chandrasekharan and former managing director KA Ratheesh, among others. However, the State government initially declined to provide the necessary sanction, prompting the single judge to call for a reconsideration. Despite this, the sanction was denied once more, leading Manoj to initiate contempt proceedings.
High Court’s Rationale
In its recent judgment, the division bench highlighted that the single judge had already identified prima facie evidence against the accused officials. Nonetheless, the CBI was rendered unable to proceed with prosecution without the requisite sanction from a competent authority. The bench emphasized that an authority cannot continuously deny sanction, thereby undermining court findings.
More Read
The bench stated, “We do not find any error committed by the Single Judge of this Court calling the appellant before him for answering the charges. If at all he has not committed [contempt], the appellant has liberty to seek discharge from the contempt case… this court cannot interfere in the order of the single judge directing him to appear in person in the contempt of court case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.”
On account of the repeated denials of sanction despite earlier court orders, the single judge, in April of this year, annulled the State’s refusal and instructed the Principal Secretary to appear in the contempt proceedings.
