The Karnataka High Court has levied a ₹1 lakh penalty on a petitioner who sent an email complaint to high-ranking judicial officials about an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer. The email, aimed at removing the officer from an ongoing investigation, was addressed to the ED Director, with copies sent to the Chief Justice of India (CJI), the Delhi High Court Chief Justice, and other senior figures. The case is titled Fair Vakkayil John Vs Union of India.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Fair Vakkayil John, expressed concerns about the alleged bias of an Assistant Director at the ED. He claimed that the officer was prejudiced and sought his removal from the investigation. His email, dated July 25, was also sent to the Finance Minister and the ED’s Chief Vigilance Officer.
High Court’s Observations
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while examining John’s writ petition, noted the lack of concrete evidence supporting the claims of bias. The court stated, “Except making a general allegation that the Investigating Officer is prejudiced against him, no material has been placed before this Court which would prima facie justify an inference that the investigation is actuated by mala fides or that the Investigating Officer has disabled himself from conducting a fair investigation.”
The court emphasized that mere dissatisfaction or apprehension does not constitute grounds for replacing an investigating officer. Justice Govindaraj further criticized the petitioner’s approach of forwarding emails to constitutional authorities, which is not a recognized method for addressing grievances related to ongoing investigations.
Court’s Verdict and Implications
The court concluded that John’s actions were inappropriate, stating, “Addressing representations concerning pending investigations to constitutional authorities who are neither the statutory decision-makers nor otherwise concerned with the conduct of the investigation serves no legitimate legal purpose.”
The court emphasized that any concerns regarding investigation fairness should be addressed through legal channels rather than informal communications with judicial figures. The decision to impose a financial penalty was intended to deter similar actions in the future. Justice Govindaraj warned, “Any repetition of such conduct in future may invite appropriate consequences, including the imposition of exemplary costs.”
The court directed that the ₹1 lakh penalty be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority. Representing the petitioner were Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta and advocate Mahesh YL. The Union of India and the ED were represented by Assistant Solicitor General Anuparna Bordoloi, while Advocate Manu Kulkarni represented Bangalore International Airport Limited. Advocate Joshua Hudson Samuel appeared for the Airports Authority of India.
